PDA

View Full Version : Did you watch the Watchmen?



Pages : [1] 2

MammonAzrael
2009-03-06, 10:16 AM
And more importantly, what did you think? I find that I cannot make myself trust the various reviews by movie critics, as they either sound like they have not read the book, don't understand it, or are morons. And the scores evenly range from perfect to horrible, giving metacritic an even 53.

So I turn to you, my fellow geeks and forum-goers. How do you feel the movie did? Was Alan Moore right, is this comic impossible to film? Or did Snyder create something amazing? And yes, I know that it's likely somewhere in between those two extremes.
Please post your thoughts and comments, as I will when I get to see it sometime this weekend.

WalkingTarget
2009-03-06, 10:30 AM
I'll be seeing it this evening.

As for critics, I rarely pay much attention to them.

I will bring up Roger Ebert's review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997), though. He gave it 4 stars (out of 4).

However, Ebert rates movies on a relative scale based on type (so this is 4 out of 4 rated against other films with the same target audience) and he rates them based on how he feels they work as films on their own merits, not based on the original source material. This means that his rating means absolutely nothing as far as it's status as an adaptation is concerned (and so does nothing to deflect nerd rage). He thought it worked well as a stand-alone film, which is the biggest thing I've worried about concerning a Watchmen adaptation.

I generally try to have this same sort of outlook going into a film adaptation of anything that I've already read. After all, that's what got me through the Lord of the Rings movies.

Sneak
2009-03-06, 10:47 AM
Yes, I was going to link the same article. I trust Ebert.

I will try to see it as soon as possible with some friends and let you know how I feel.

Because my opinion should mean so much to you. :smallwink: :smalltongue:

xyzzy
2009-03-06, 10:50 AM
Saw it at midnight :smallbiggrin:

While there were a lot of things left out of the film, the film does an amazing job of making sure no plot holes come up from these blanks, and (while I knew the plot beforehand, which many won't) the film makes sense from the information given.

The other big thing is that the ending was changed. Now Veidt, instead of pulling out psychics and fake aliens and other crazy things made it look like Dr. Manhattan caused the massacre. At first I was worried about the new ending, but it worked so much better --- I actually preferred this ending; it didn't feel as contrived.

Also, make sure you're only sitting around fans of the graphic novel when you watch it. After the 3rd or 4th time I heard incessant giggling behind me, I wanted to turn around and say, "yes, we all know there's a blue penis on the screen. It's not really that funny." :smalltongue:

Anyway, it's a great adaption. If you're looking for every single detail to be preserved perfectly, then you'll be disappointed, but if you want something that matches the spirit of the graphic novel and works as a film, then you'll love it.

Hzurr
2009-03-06, 11:18 AM
I saw it last night/this morning, and I'm...not sure what to think. A few thoughts:

Casting: The casting of the Comedian and Rorschach was awesome. Spot on awesome. The casting of Ozzy was horrible. Really, really horrible. I didn't believe what he said, I didn't see any passion, and he just...didn't come across as the amazing pinnacle of humanity that he does in the comic. Dr. Manhattan and Nite Owl were good, Silk Spectre was a bit...wooden, but so was the character in the comic books

Pacing: I feel as if they couldn't decide if this was an action movie, or a large character driven epic. The pacing was just...off. It had a tough time building up to anything. I will say this, though: Snyder knows how to do some spiffy action scenes.

Emotional payoff: None. Every time I read the book, I'm blown away by the end revelation. This one just felt...dull. You didn't hear the triumph in Adrian's voice, you didn't get the "Wooo! Saved the world!" feeling that you get in the comic book (graphic novel), it just kindof...happens.

Overall, I actually think it might have suffered for sticking too close to the graphic novel. While you can meander around and take your time over a year-long comic book series, when you do that in a movie it really slows things down, even if the information you're giving is interesting (the comedian's funeral took FOREVER, even though I really liked each scene individually. Seeing one after another like that slowed things down to a crawl). I know that's how it was presented in the book, but a graphic novel is not a movie, no matter how good the book was.

The ending was...ok. I have a bit of trouble buying that the rest of the world is going to simply say "Oh United States, it's not your fault that your superman went crazy and killed millions, let's all work together to keep him from doing it again!" . They'd be @#$#@% off. I mean, when I first saw it in the movie I was ok with it, but the more I think about it, the more I have to say "...eh...that wouldn't have worked." I'd actually prefer it if he had summoned a Kraken like in the novel (Yes, I'm fully aware it wasn't a Kraken)

While this was largely negative, there were some parts of the movie I really enjoyed (mainly every scene with Rorschach. That actor did a phenomenal job), other parts were very "meh." I give it a solid thumbs sideways. Not bad, but the good parts weren't enough to outweigh the "meh" parts

Neko Toast
2009-03-06, 11:18 AM
I'll probably go and see the film over spring break with a couple friends. I am rather psyched about it. Some of my other friends (including the one who introduced me to the novel) are skeptical about it, but I still have some expectations for the film.

Opal Tide
2009-03-06, 11:28 AM
Also saw it at midnight and I must say it exceeded my expectations.

The film was very loyal to the source material, the charatcers seemed to be right out of the pages of the comic, and the fight scenes were perfectly paced. Rorschach was amazing and Dr. Manhattan's little manhattan wasn't very distracting.

Granted there is a lot of very graphic violence in the film (and some nudity I was not expecting), but for the most part it is not gratuitous. The ending was different, but I think it preserved the spirit of the original ending. If you are a fan of Watchmen, I really think you'll love this movie.

There were some nits that could be picked (like Nixon's HUGE nose), but many of these may be corrected in the director's cut which I am eagerly anticipating. They only have so much time to work with. I don't know if it will be a commercial hit, but it has a place in my Top 5 movies for certain.

As for the reviewers, I think most of them took the movie too much at face value (superheroes, spandex, violence), without examining the deeper meaning of the movie/comic book: alienation from humanity, means justifying the ends, the psychology of a real world vigilante, etc.

Though I think this is the funniest review of the movie I have read:

Their conclusion (http://www.movieguide.org/box-office/7/6282): The end of this gory, perverse, anti-American movie affirms the international, socialist, humanist worldview of the radical left. The one hero who believes in good and evil [Roschach] is considered an obstacle to progress. Although there are some positive references to faith in Jesus, there are many more references mocking faith, including a mean satire of Leonardo Da Vinci’s reverent painting of the Last Supper and denigrations of God. Ultimately, WATCHMEN’s perverse interest in sadomasochistic images of gore and blood and its prurient interest in graphic sex scenes shows how morally and intellectually bankrupt atheism, socialism, liberalism, and leftist ideology have become.

shaxberd
2009-03-06, 11:37 AM
I've heard that this doesn't contain any scenes specifically designed for IMAX screens, even though it's being distributed at IMAX theaters. Is this true? If someone saw it at an IMAX theater, could you tell me whether it looked like the top and bottom of the picture were cut off or the left and right sides of the picture seemed cut off? Thanks. I'm just wondering whether it wouldn't be better to see it in a regular theater.

Neko Toast
2009-03-06, 11:47 AM
Though I think this is the funniest review of the movie I have read:

Their conclusion (http://www.movieguide.org/box-office/7/6282): The end of this gory, perverse, anti-American movie affirms the international, socialist, humanist worldview of the radical left. The one hero who believes in good and evil [Roschach] is considered an obstacle to progress. Although there are some positive references to faith in Jesus, there are many more references mocking faith, including a mean satire of Leonardo Da Vinci’s reverent painting of the Last Supper and denigrations of God. Ultimately, WATCHMEN’s perverse interest in sadomasochistic images of gore and blood and its prurient interest in graphic sex scenes shows how morally and intellectually bankrupt atheism, socialism, liberalism, and leftist ideology have become.

This made me lulz as well. You gotta love how some people can only see in black and white.

Rutskarn
2009-03-06, 12:08 PM
I've read a lot of reviews like that, and their major problem (well, okay, one of their major problems) is that they can't understand that some films aren't trying to say, "the protagonists of this movie are the people we believe deserve to be emulated".

Hzurr
2009-03-06, 12:19 PM
I've heard that this doesn't contain any scenes specifically designed for IMAX screens, even though it's being distributed at IMAX theaters. Is this true? If someone saw it at an IMAX theater, could you tell me whether it looked like the top and bottom of the picture were cut off or the left and right sides of the picture seemed cut off? Thanks. I'm just wondering whether it wouldn't be better to see it in a regular theater.

Yeah, I saw it on IMAX. Basically, everything is just very big, and it has excellent surround sound, but there are no "Woah, IMAX" moments like in Dark Knight.


This made me lulz as well. You gotta love how some people can only see in black and white.

Heh, wasn't seeing in Black and White the whole point of Rorschach?

SuperMuldoon
2009-03-06, 12:21 PM
I saw it at midnight in IMAX. I thought the movie was good overall, and probably the best anyone could really hope for from a movie adaptation. Yes, some stuff was cut out or changed, but as it has been previously noted, it does not mess anything up in regards to plot. The casting I thought was pretty good, with Rorshach being the highlight because the actor playing him is spot on. What surprised me was the amount of gore. I thought this was awesome, but some people might be turned off by it (I don't remember the graphic novel being that bloody!). One nit-pick I had was about the music. The soundtrack was awesome, but some of the placing of the songs was a little awkward I felt. I also thought that it might be hard for people who aren't familiar with the source material to follow, but the people I went with who weren't so familiar with it enjoyed it, so take that how you will. Overall, a solid movie. If you enjoyed the graphic novel, or movies in the genre go check it out.

WalkingTarget
2009-03-06, 12:33 PM
Yeah, I saw it on IMAX. Basically, everything is just very big, and it has excellent surround sound, but there are no "Woah, IMAX" moments like in Dark Knight.

Good to know. The nearest IMAX theater to me is almost 3 hours away (made a point with The Dark Knight, but hadn't planned on doing so for this one).


Heh, wasn't seeing in Black and White the whole point of Rorschach?

Yeah, but some people's worldviews include objective "good" and "evil" so they latch onto that aspect of the character since he's the only one that shares that view. The fact that he allows for absolutely no middle ground is something they overlook. At least, all the people I know aren't as rigid as R. Moral ambiguity is a major theme, but that ambiguity is really disquieting for some.

EvilDMMk3
2009-03-06, 12:59 PM
I liked it. I liked it a lot.

They changed a few things but it worked well. The ending, I prefer it to the original.

Ozzy was not as well cast as he might of been but the others all worked well.

The best thing however is the choreography and the set pieces. The fights don't look realistic in the sense that they look like normal human fights, but they do look like the fights these characters would have and they are done very well. The imagery, the sheet spectacle of the film, is, I have no other word for it, beautiful. Down right gorgeous.

One issue, it has ruined Alleluia for me for ever.


Their conclusion (http://www.movieguide.org/box-office/7/6282)

My favorite quote from that review:
One news commentator says gods are bad news for America. No. He. Does. Not.
He says that god being an American is bad news.

mercurymaline
2009-03-06, 01:19 PM
The ending was...ok. I have a bit of trouble buying that the rest of the world is going to simply say "Oh United States, it's not your fault that your superman went crazy and killed millions, let's all work together to keep him from doing it again!" . They'd be @#$#@% off. I mean, when I first saw it in the movie I was ok with it, but the more I think about it, the more I have to say "...eh...that wouldn't have worked." I'd actually prefer it if he had summoned a Kraken like in the novel (Yes, I'm fully aware it wasn't a Kraken)


To do the original ending from the book would have required a bit more explanation, and added even more time to the movie. I understand why it couldn't be done. I find the new ending more tragic, if only because it involves framing Dr. Manhattan. And because he sees the good in it, he allows himself to be used as a scapegoat.

The point in the novel was that only New York was destroyed, so the USSR laid down arms and came to help America rebuild. (Not unrealistic, see Cuba regarding hurricane Katrina.)

T-O-E
2009-03-06, 01:46 PM
I intend to.

ghost_warlock
2009-03-06, 01:51 PM
I also saw it at midnight and I also enjoyed the film. Yes, the ending was different, but that was the only major change and I was actually impressed with how well it followed the source material. Personally, I think I prefer the film's version of Ozy's plan for forcing peace if for no reason other than that the comic plan always seemed so...cheesey.

Really, I don't have much more to say that the other positive reviewers have, although there was a change I wasn't so happy about:
the film didn't have Rorschach burn the kidnapper alive in his house, instead he chopped the kidnapper up with a cleaver :smallannoyed:.

Fawkes
2009-03-06, 01:54 PM
Their conclusion (http://www.movieguide.org/box-office/7/6282): The end of this gory, perverse, anti-American movie affirms the international, socialist, humanist worldview of the radical left. The one hero who believes in good and evil [Roschach] is considered an obstacle to progress. Although there are some positive references to faith in Jesus, there are many more references mocking faith, including a mean satire of Leonardo Da Vinci’s reverent painting of the Last Supper and denigrations of God. Ultimately, WATCHMEN’s perverse interest in sadomasochistic images of gore and blood and its prurient interest in graphic sex scenes shows how morally and intellectually bankrupt atheism, socialism, liberalism, and leftist ideology have become.

Did... did Rorschach write that review?

I saw the movie at the midnight release and I was blown away. It's true, they are a lot of things not to like about it, but considering how difficult it must have been to adapt Watchmen to the screen, they did an amazing job. I'll see it again in theaters, and I'll buy the DVD as soon as it comes out.

Jackie Earle Halley was a perfect Rorschach. Nailed it.

mercurymaline
2009-03-06, 01:57 PM
Really, I don't have much more to say that the other positive reviewers have, although there was a change I wasn't so happy about:
the film didn't have Rorschach burn the kidnapper alive in his house, instead he chopped the kidnapper up with a cleaver :smallannoyed:.

It was more potent, I think, because he was shaking, and you could see it even through the mask. The last bit of Walter Kovacs' humanity, dying. *shudder*

Innis Cabal
2009-03-06, 02:31 PM
I feel anyone who had a problem with the product we got was going to have issues regardless. Did it have some problems? Ya. Silk Spectre was wooden, but as already said....its not like it was a change of character. I disagree with everyone who dislikes Ozy's casting. It was brilliant, the director thought it was brilliant nearly outright refusing the role to anyone else and I think he made a smart move. He was brilliant, thats all I can say about his acting.

pyrefiend
2009-03-06, 03:28 PM
My problem with Ozy was that in the comic, he was a saint right up until the end. In the movie, he came across as creepy and threatening the whole time. That said, it was a great film, better than I had hoped for. Thank goodness Jackie Earle Halley did such a great job as Rorschach. I shudder to think of the nerd rage that would have ensued if he hadn't.

EvilDMMk3
2009-03-06, 03:31 PM
the film didn't have Rorschach burn the kidnapper alive in his house, instead he chopped the kidnapper up with a cleaver :smallannoyed:.On the screen the reason for this is clear in terms of planning the spectacle. We had already had a fire. This allowed us to see a different thing happening whilst keeping the core of the event the same and indeed enhancing it to take into account the visual rather than textual media. It also preserves the "vibrations up my arm, warm blood on my face" quote.

Verruckt
2009-03-06, 04:02 PM
Ruined Alleluia for me, soundtrack was otherwise spectacular. As far as the reviews go, there are of course going to be some really negative ones, most people don't attend superhero movies for the overwhelming sense of existential terror that watchmen is capable of imparting on the uninitiated. I personally loved it, if only because of the joy I got out of watching some of my favorite characters really come to life. I was savoring Rorschach's every twitch, smiling at Nite Owl's every fumble. There are several moments better appreciated if you've read the graphic novel (of course) but the movie stands up on its own quite well. I was concerned going in that the film would have difficulty mirroring the comic's constant undercurrent of visual symbolism but even this was managed well. Go see it, it's great.

I am a huge unashamed bond fan, seen every last one of the movies, but there is a new king in the world of opening credits. When they revealed the comedian as the shooter on the knoll I was greatly amused, even more so by Ozy hanging out with Mick Jager, David Bowie and the Village People. I'm going to have to watch it again because I'm sure I missed some wonderful reference or another.

My one and only nitpick, and it is indeed a most trivial nitpick, was that Jon's last words on earth are to Specter, not Ozy. I always liked the scene where Ozy seeks validation from him and receives none. It's the only time in the comic when Ozy seem really unsure of himself.

ravenkith
2009-03-06, 04:28 PM
I caught it last night in a test screening, keeping a friend of mine company.

First things first: in a lot of ways, the movie is very similar to the graphic novel.

As pointed out previously, however, they are not the same.

The changes to the original story all stem from the change in medium, and the change in the real world that end product is being released in.

For example, the emphasis on the 'solving the energy crisis' subplot.

Alan Moore said it originally: Watchmen is just too epic to be turned into a movie without having to make some compromises.

There's not a lot of screen time to go around, so some of the characters come in a little short on the development side...and when those characters that DO get development get their 5 minutes (or whatever) in the sun, the end result is to break the pacing of the movie, the main plot, or whatever you want to call it.

The biggest example of this is the sojourn on Mars and Manhattan's 'origin story' flashback - right in the middle of the damn film, it felt almost like an intermission - but it's ALMOST EXACTLY where it takes place in the graphic novel

The issues with the pacing aside, this is as faithful a reproduction of the graphic novel as could be managed, with some good performances, most notably lead by Haley's Rorshach.

The kid from Bad News Bears knocked it out of the park, folks: it's pretty clear that he has WAY more acting talent than anyone really ever gave him credit for.

Not only that, Crudup's Dr. Manhattan, really gave you the sense of utter and total apathy that apparently came with his godlike powers (and yes, I do mean godlike - Snyder really makes you feel Manhattan's power level in this film, a very important piece of Osterman's personal puzzle.

Patrick Wilson did a good job with the indecisive Nite Owl - a man conflicted between what he feels in his heart is right, and what his head tells him is the most prudent way to go.

The key example of this came to me when watching the makeout scenes with Laurie: I was thinking, the whole time - "What, are you demented? You are trying to **** the nuclear man's girlfriend. That guy can blow you apart with a thought!" I read the book many, many times, but never really 'got' his initial 'failure to launch' until after I saw Dr. Manhattan in operation on the big screen.

Silk Spectre and Veidt here, are the ones who get shortchanged on development - there is still an attempt made, but they don't get as much 'face time' with the camera, and so, it makes them feel very wooden.

For the character of Veidt, this works: distancing oneself from humanity in order to : slaughter 15 million or so of 'em makes perfect sense, and ties into his master plot to drive Manhattan off: he can conceive of it, because he can empathize with the whole concept - Karnak is Veidt's 'Mars'. . It just makes sense.

With the silk spectre, however, this doesn't make sense - in the comic book, she was a very emotionally driven person - she came off as underdeveloped because she only ever really thought (if that's not an oxymoron) with her heart.

The portrayal here doesn't really seem to grasp that the source of the character's impetus is her emotions - feeling them, being lead by them, and nothing else - and so falls a little flat. To be fair though, the actress did a great job of looking like she stepped straight out of a comic book.

On the whole, if you are a comic book fan, this is a film you need to see. It's probably not a film you will feel the need to see in it's entirety more than once, sadly.

Don't get me wrong - there are some really cool moments in the film, and the whole thing is just oozing with style - but the issue of pacing takes center stage in the transition from comic book to film.

I personally think that Manhattan's origin story should have been placed at the front of the film...go from the photograph at the carnival, all the way up to where someone says ' the superman is real...and he's an american", then cut to Blake watching TV, using datelines to distinguish the jump in time, and help setup the fact that this is a world with heroes in it, early on.

Then, when Osterman jumps to Mars, just show him looking at the picture for a moment, regretfully, dropping it to the sand, then raising his 'summer home', if you get what I mean, doing the whole 'moving in' thing, before cutting back to the action.

Innis Cabal
2009-03-06, 05:15 PM
Then, when Osterman jumps to Mars, just show him looking at the picture for a moment, regretfully, dropping it to the sand, then raising his 'summer home', if you get what I mean, doing the whole 'moving in' thing, before cutting back to the action.

This simply wouldn't have worked though. There is more to that particular scene then just setting up Jon's backstory. Its to explain how he lives and precives things. The pacing was nearly identical to the comic, and if it had been broken up die hard fans would have raged.

There was no easy solution, but if you placed Jon in the first 20 minutes of the film not only would it make most viewers who did not read the comic think he was the main character (and thats imply not the case) and would cause problems when the two driving characters show up.

Berserk Monk
2009-03-06, 05:17 PM
Went to the midnight showing. Thought it was good. It wasn't great though. Some minor stuff got cut out and I'm the anal type so that kind of bugs me, but hey, it's a lot to condense into a 3 hour film. Still, very accurate to the film. Out of all of Alan Moore's comics that became films, this is the best. Also, one thing I think I should mention, when 99 luftbalons started playing in the background music I couldn't help but grin. Great song.

Aside from the actual film, turn out at the premiere was disappointing. The theatre was full, but it was full of idiots. I doubt any of them even read the comic. Only me and my one other friend came in costume. I was Rorschach and he was Dr. Manhattan. People kept calling him "The Blue Man Group." I'm not sure anyone even got my reference until they saw the movie. We did however go up to the front of the theatre and do the whole "Rorschach shouts 'Do it!' and gets killed by Dr. Manhattan scene" while we waited for it to start.

One thing that pissed me of was the negative attitude that people had for my costume. It was pretty accurate to the real Rorschach one, except for the mask (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105923). One person made a sarcastic comment about it. Another person called it a "cheap" Rorschach mask. How do you even respond to a comment about that? One chick liked it though. Hugged me after the film. Ladies love the maille.

snoopy13a
2009-03-06, 06:10 PM
They used the wrong director. They should have used one of these guys:

http://www.slate.com/id/2212953/

:smallsmile:

KnightDisciple
2009-03-06, 06:18 PM
As someone who believes in objective Good and Evil, I still enjoyed the movie. :smalltongue:
Partly because I'm still thinking over the question of: If I were Night Owl (II),...would I have gone along with it? Or would I have gone the path of Rorshach?
Looking back, I think some of the shots of, ah, "naughty bits" could have been shadowed more or whatnot, and nothing would have been lost.
@SuperMuldoon: Yeah, the gore kind of surprised me, too.

The Neoclassic
2009-03-06, 06:30 PM
I thought Watchmen was excellent. Not amazing, but very, very good.

There was only one change that bothered me was:

Dr. Manhattan talked to Laurie last rather than Ozy, and so they left out that important little conversation where Dr. Manhattan tells him "Nothing ever changes."

The placement of the Hallelujah song was awful, but other than that, no serious complaints with the movie. Badass at parts, quite true to the book, and long enough to get most things in without being horrifically long.



Looking back, I think some of the shots of, ah, "naughty bits" could have been shadowed more or whatnot, and nothing would have been lost.

Honestly, I don't think that shadowing them would have added anything. It still amazes me that people are fine with plenty of gore but showing breasts is bothersome. One could argue that some of the gore could have been not shown so directly (like what happened to that guy's hands) and nothing would have been lost. However, the director didn't shy away from gore or nudity (though nor were gratitutous amounts added), just put in an amount fairly consistent with the comic and the tone of the movie, of which I approve. Watchmen isn't really a movie for the particularly faint of heart nor for children.

Innis Cabal
2009-03-06, 07:59 PM
There is a difference between mild sexual situations and the occasional soft core sex scene, which the movie had and haveing RAMPANT PENISES which....the movie had. I for one agree that sex and the human body shouldn't be so demonized....but its not like the comic book had Jon running around stark naked, though I think it was a powerful showing of his lack of humanity.

But honestly....they weren't even cute...they just all sorta hung there....and who wants that?

Starscream
2009-03-06, 08:31 PM
I just got back from seeing it, and overall I was very impressed.

The graphic novel is one of my favorite books of all time, so I definitely went in with a somewhat cynical "Impress me" attitude.

I've always found it extremely irritating that things like this get made over the creators heads. If I want to adapt a Stephen King book into a movie, I have to actually set up a meeting with Stephen King, and if he says no I'm out of luck. But if I want to film Watchmen I just need to get the okay from DC Comics, and Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons are non-factors.

Not to malign DC (who have given me countless hours of entertainment over the years), but their big contribution to the creation of Watchmen is owning a printing press. If I were to ever print up my own script and shop it around Hollywood, I'm hoping the studios would ask me if they can film it, not Kinkos.

Wow, tangent city. Back to the film.

The only problem I have with this adaptation is one that was completely unavoidable: it's not twelve hours long. That's probably how long it would take to tell the novel's story in its entirety, and obviously cuts had to be made. And I felt every last one of them. There was a little pang every time I noticed a scene missing or a line of dialog cut, but I really can't begrudge the filmmakers for that.

I'm a purist for stuff like this, but at 163 minutes it's still a plenty long movie. And I've read that the director's cut is 191 minutes, so I hope to see that one day. Might put back some of the stuff I missed. I especially would like some of the focus on the older heroes restored.

That's the only thing wrong with this adaptation, but there's also a lot right with it. The casting is great. The effects are impressive without being showy. I like the soundtrack. The story makes sense for newcomers without betraying oldcomers by being dumbed down.

Yeah, the ending is a little different, but its spirit is the same. There is more emphasis on the fight scenes than there was in the book, and some of the dialog heavy scenes have been shortened. But at the same time, none of the action feels tacked on because it is all based on stuff that happened in the original. They just expanded it, instead of making it up from nothing. Likewise, none of the really crucial scenes was truncated, and I never got the feeling they sacrificed character and story to fit in more fighting. Heck, some scenes were so close to the comic that I actually found myself mouthing the dialog along with the actors.

Overall a fine interpretation of the story. There could probably never be a perfect screen interpretation of Watchmen, but this is probably the best possible one.

4.5/5

Verruckt
2009-03-06, 08:36 PM
There is a difference between mild sexual situations and the occasional soft core sex scene, which the movie had and haveing RAMPANT PENISES which....the movie had. I for one agree that sex and the human body shouldn't be so demonized....but its not like the comic book had Jon running around stark naked, though I think it was a powerful showing of his lack of humanity.

But honestly....they weren't even cute...they just all sorta hung there....and who wants that?

You are now imagining every scene is the movie that depicts the angle of the big blue dangle featuring a hovering graphic over his groin, a la The Laughing Man, preferably a Helo Kitty face.

Semidi
2009-03-06, 09:13 PM
Their conclusion (http://www.movieguide.org/box-office/7/6282): The end of this gory, perverse, anti-American movie affirms the international, socialist, humanist worldview of the radical left. The one hero who believes in good and evil [Roschach] is considered an obstacle to progress. Although there are some positive references to faith in Jesus, there are many more references mocking faith, including a mean satire of Leonardo Da Vinci’s reverent painting of the Last Supper and denigrations of God. Ultimately, WATCHMEN’s perverse interest in sadomasochistic images of gore and blood and its prurient interest in graphic sex scenes shows how morally and intellectually bankrupt atheism, socialism, liberalism, and leftist ideology have become.

I thought this review was hilarious. Though I'm also very sad that it's not a parody.

My conclusion: I thought it was really good. Wasn't amazing, just really good. I wasn't disappointed like I was with Constantine and some other comic-movie adaptations.

DomaDoma
2009-03-06, 10:19 PM
but its not like the comic book had Jon running around stark naked, though I think it was a powerful showing of his lack of humanity.

Um, actually, it did. Pretty much constantly.

The Linker
2009-03-06, 11:10 PM
Um, actually, it did. Pretty much constantly.

Yeah, I'm not sure how you missed that. :smalltongue:

I liked most of the changes that were made. A lot of them really made sense, and I could see the logic behind them. I kind of loved it when they radically changed or added a scene, or added new dialogue, and it didn't look out of place. There was one change in particular that was insignificant in the grand scope of the film, but really made a ton more sense to me...

When Big Figure's henchmen gets in the way, with his hands tied up and sitting there in front of the lock. In the graphic novel, Big Figure says "He's in the way of my revenge. Kill him." And they do, by stabbing him in the neck. Um, ok? He's still there! Now you've got a corpse hanging there! The only difference is that he makes less noise this way! :smalltongue: In the novel, they chopped off his hands and shoved him away. That was pretty neat. Gory, but neat.

That was another thing. Lots more gore in the movie than the novel. With the exception of Rorshach (sp?), none of Dr. Manhattan's 'boom-you're-dead' attacks showed any blood. In the movie, it's like, 'boom-your-guts-are-on-the-ceiling-now'. :smalleek: And then there was Dreiberg breaking a guy's arm in such a way that the elbow comes out and blood goes everywhere. Ew. :smalltongue: And finally, we get to see what happens when young Rorschach (sp again?) is NOT interrupted in his efforts to chew the bully's ear off. :smalltongue: Strange that they dropped the 'cigarette-in-the-eye' bit, but I always did think it was sort of crazy. I mean, he had to grab it, flip it around, and leap up, and stab it into a small target that should have been moving around in a 'woah-hey-what' kind of way. Ah, well. :smalltongue:

Also, I have a question. In the book, Ozymandias manages to catch the bullet fired at him with his bare hands. In the movie, he does it with gloves on. Now, by the way the bullet was sticking out of the gloves, and the textures on the glove, I thought the explanation was that he wore gloves made out of the same material you make bulletproof vests out of. I thought this was a great change that took out one of the more 'dude-you-owe-me-a-new-suspension-of-disbelief' moments. However, my friends boggled at this recount, saying they were just normal leather gloves and he simply caught it, like in the book. What do you guys think?

Hmm. I apologize for the large amount of 'I'll-explain-a-concept-with-a-bunch-of-words-strung-together-with-dashes' sentences. I don't usually do it that much. :smalleek:

...gah!

Ascension
2009-03-06, 11:42 PM
Let me just say that I was positively surprised. They made a movie that was accessible to the general public (as represented by my father, who had not read Watchmen before seeing the movie), acceptable for the comic reader (as represented by... well, all the people in this thread who don't want to lynch Zack Snyder, plus me), and still preserves both the message and the atmosphere of the original. Did I notice things that were removed? Yes. Did I miss them? In some cases. Do I think that it could've been done any better than it was done? No. There are some directors, some actors, some elements that could have improved some portions of the film, but they would have also weakened other portions. I think it's possible that someone else could have made a movie this good, but I don't think anyone could've done better. That leaves the only question as "If this is the best they could do, should they have bothered to try?" and I say... yes. Yes. Though I personally think V for Vendetta is the best of Alan Moore's work, Watchmen is certainly one of the greatest pieces of sequential art ever created, and anything that will bring it to a wider audience should be commended. This will provoke thought, debate. And provoking real thought, deep reflection... that's the greatest thing any form of communication can hope for.

kpenguin
2009-03-06, 11:46 PM
Watch it? MammonAzrael, I'm not some douchebag who posts in threads he doesn't know about. Do you really think I'd be posting in this thread if there was a chance I hadn't seen it? I watched it thirty-five minutes ago.

...

Almost literally.

Vuzzmop
2009-03-07, 12:03 AM
Just saw it. Very impressed. I thought the transition to screen was very well done. I can see the American media questioning its use of violence and sex, two aspects of the graphic novel I found integral to the narrative. Its a shame really, how people react to things like this. Finally a "superhero" film I can have faith in; not an absolute transportation to film, but rather a homage, a legacy worth sharing.

aragorn1398
2009-03-07, 12:04 AM
Watch it? MammonAzrael, I'm not some douchebag who posts in threads he doesn't know about. Do you really think I'd be posting in this thread if there was a chance I hadn't seen it? I watched it thirty-five minutes ago.

...

Almost literally.

Nice.

Ozymadias: "Well, I've kicked your ass and saved humanity in a single hour. What do you have to say about that Rorschach?:smalltongue:"

Rorschach: "3 words. Journal 4 gg.:smallcool::smallbiggrin::amused:"

Ozymadias: "What?:smallconfused::smalleek:"

Rorschach: "1-1, your move.:smallcool::smallamused:"

Ozymadias: "Well, damn.:smallfrown:"

Brewdude
2009-03-07, 12:26 AM
I also saw it at midnight and I also enjoyed the film. Yes, the ending was different, but that was the only major change and I was actually impressed with how well it followed the source material. Personally, I think I prefer the film's version of Ozy's plan for forcing peace if for no reason other than that the comic plan always seemed so...cheesey.

Really, I don't have much more to say that the other positive reviewers have, although there was a change I wasn't so happy about:
the film didn't have Rorschach burn the kidnapper alive in his house, instead he chopped the kidnapper up with a cleaver :smallannoyed:.

This one is easy to explain in one word:

SAW.

Brewdude
2009-03-07, 12:29 AM
I thought Watchmen was excellent. Not amazing, but very, very good.

There was only one change that bothered me was:

Dr. Manhattan talked to Laurie last rather than Ozy, and so they left out that important little conversation where Dr. Manhattan tells him "Nothing ever changes."


It's worse than that.

They give the line to Silk Spectre.

LordZarth
2009-03-07, 01:00 AM
Hey!

You know Nixon?

My drama teacher. :smallbiggrin:

Nevrmore
2009-03-07, 01:19 AM
This one is easy to explain in one word:

SAW.
Two words:

MAD MAX.

Get your references in chronological order.

First impressions, I had some major issues with this movie, not the least of which being the ridiculously over-the-top violence, the needlessly drawn out sex scene, or Dr. Manhatten's performance, which, aside from the kidnapper Rorschach deals with in flashback, was the worst acting of the movie. But as I've already written things to similar effects on several different message boards tonight, I think I'll wait until tomorrow before I elaborate more on what I disliked about the movie.

Ascension
2009-03-07, 01:43 AM
Hey!

You know Nixon?

My drama teacher. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously? That's awesome.

mercurymaline
2009-03-07, 01:55 AM
There is a difference between mild sexual situations and the occasional soft core sex scene, which the movie had and haveing RAMPANT PENISES which....the movie had. I for one agree that sex and the human body shouldn't be so demonized....but its not like the comic book had Jon running around stark naked, though I think it was a powerful showing of his lack of humanity.

But honestly....they weren't even cute...they just all sorta hung there....and who wants that?

It's weird to me that seeing a movie filled with topless females is fine, but it's so unusual to see penis on film, outside of pornography. I'm so unaccustomed to it, I got weirdly uncomfortable during some scenes, knowing I was in a huge dark room with a ton of people, looking at a giant blue penis. But Sin City gave me no problems.

None of the sex in Watchmen was gratuitous. Dreiburg being unable to perform until he got back into the superhero swing of things, Laurie going from a relationship in which she was inferior to being sexually dominant, it was all important characterization.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-07, 01:55 AM
I went to the 7:30 PM showing tonight, and I was impressed. I think it was a swell primer for someone who's never actually read the novel.

Yes, I'm one of those heretics who watches the movie before reading the book. You are welcome to get a stake to burn me on.

Other than that, I can't really say anything that hasn't already been said.

Nevrmore
2009-03-07, 02:00 AM
None of the sex in Watchmen was gratuitous. Dreiburg being unable to perform until he got back into the superhero swing of things, Laurie going from a relationship in which she was inferior to being sexually dominant, it was all important characterization.
Two minutes of watching Dan's bare ass rhythmically gyrating up and down as he humped Laurie on the control panel of his ship was important characterization?

mercurymaline
2009-03-07, 02:00 AM
Two minutes of watching Dan's bare ass rhythmically gyrating up and down as he humped Laurie on the control panel of his ship was important characterization?

It was a really nice ass.


I get your point, though. Did they need to get the full shot of Dr. Manhattan descending that staircase?


@V Am I wrong?

RabbitHoleLost
2009-03-07, 02:03 AM
It was a really nice ass.

This justifies everything.
@^ No, sir, you are not wrong.

KnightDisciple
2009-03-07, 02:18 AM
Honestly, I don't think that shadowing them would have added anything. It still amazes me that people are fine with plenty of gore but showing breasts is bothersome. One could argue that some of the gore could have been not shown so directly (like what happened to that guy's hands) and nothing would have been lost. However, the director didn't shy away from gore or nudity (though nor were gratitutous amounts added), just put in an amount fairly consistent with the comic and the tone of the movie, of which I approve. Watchmen isn't really a movie for the particularly faint of heart nor for children.

...Actually, they could have toned down the gore (specifically, the people blowing up, and the elbow-through-the-skin), and it would have detracted nothing. On top of not specifically needing the 2 minutes in the ship. Seriously. Have close drop to the floor, maybe a second of flashed movement and heavy breathing, then a scene where we see nothing and everything, as it were, post...act. Again, wouldn't have detracted anything. And I'm not saying make Manhatten wear clothes. I'm saying have fewer shots of his...little Manhatten.

Mr._Blinky
2009-03-07, 03:01 AM
Manhattan's Penis: Didn't really care to be honest, I just chose to ignore it. I don't know, that might just be me. Not to imply anyone is insecure, but I think I personally feel secure enough in my own sexuality that things like that don't really bother me.

Sex Scene: This, on the other hand, was awkward. I mean, okay, I can stand them having a sex scene, but did it honestly need to be two freakin' minutes?! Seriously? And yes, EPIC MUSIC FAIL.

Gore: I could definitely have done with much less of it. I'm kind of squeamish about gore, and so were most of the people with me, so a lot of the scenes were pretty uncomfortable. The worst part was how much of it was totally unnecessary.

Other than that, pretty good flick. Not amazing, but good.

Innis Cabal
2009-03-07, 03:22 AM
Manhattan's Penis: Didn't really care to be honest, I just chose to ignore it. I don't know, that might just be me. Not to imply anyone is insecure, but I think I personally feel secure enough in my own sexuality that things like that don't really bother me.

:smallconfused:

I don't think it has anything to do with security or the lack there of for even 1% of the viewing population. I would have personaly cared for one nice rack for every shot of Dan and Jon cavorting across the screen. And as to it being silly, misplaced and over the top...its just sex.

Gamiress
2009-03-07, 03:24 AM
I saw the midnight showing, there was a trivia contest. I swept it, until they told me I couldn't answer anymore (I'd already given away a few prizes to people who were almost as fast, since that's just reflexes as opposed to knowledge)

Hurray for being the only person in the theater to remember both Gordian Knot and Ozymandias being named for both Alexander the Great and Ramses II.

Although I'm of the theory that with Gordian Knot being such a blatant Alexander reference, Adrian probably owned that company and the lock was deliberately faulty. It was luck that Rorschach broke it first.

Personally, I loved the movie. I think it's the best adaptation that could ever be made of Watchmen, and I understand why they cut or concentrated the things they did. Come on, as is the movie was three hours long. If they'd included everything, we'd be there all night. The change to the ending was not a bad one, it was actually much more plausible and carried a new note of character tragedy that was nice.

Jackie Earle Haley needs to be in more movies, straightaway. Ferserial.

I liked the change to Rorschach's dark epiphany. It was much more emotional and visceral, I was sitting with tears in my eyes, watching all the rage and hate and agony pour out of him until there was just Rorschach left.

BRC
2009-03-07, 03:32 AM
Behold, the People's Review.

Well, obviously I'm not going to comment on how I liked the story, so instead I'll comment on general things I liked and disliked.
Things I liked
The opening Montage. Looked very comic book-ish, set the scene very well.
Whatshisname that played the Comedian. He was great. Same with Rorschach.
The "I am Ozymandius, King of Kings" quote placed near the end on that pedestal.
Oddly enough, the change in Veidt's plan. The giant squid wouldn't have worked all that well on-screen.
For the most part, the fight scenes. Though some of them dragged on a little long, they tended to be pretty good. The rapid motions really gave the impression that the characters were fighting on instinct. Rorschach vs the Swat Team was especially good.
Jon's Voice. I've always read him with a voice kind of like the Wizard of Oz, but giving him such a quiet, meek voice worked so well with his character and the theme of powerlessness.
Those moments where they said "Yeah, here are these things we couldn't fit in, sorry, hey, here's more about them!" Like the Bernies getting a couple seconds of screentime, and the Psychiatrist.
Costumes: once again, Great. I especially loved the Minutemen costumes. They looked perfectly ridiculous. They Cooled-up Dan and Adrian's costumes, but I understand their reasonings for doing so.
The way they reworked things without changing the substance. For example, having Adrian describe his Alexander the Great fetish to the oil company execs rather than to Dan and Rorschach.
The Scene in Vietnam. Nasty, brutish. Highly stylized, representing more of an idea than an actual event. Then, to top it all off, Ride of the Valkrines in the background. Brilliant.
Things I could have lived without
The excessive use of 60's, 70's, and 80's music with the lyrics turned up so you can hear it. There is a reason you can rarely hear the lyrics in background music. Although, I liked "The Times they are a-changin" at the beginning, and "All along the Watchtower" at the end was great. Though that may just be because everything can be improved with a Jimi Hendrix Soundtrack. EVERYTHING.
Everything with Silk Specter seemed kind of artificial, I don't know why.
NIXON OVERDOSE! Especially with the mask they had the guy wearing, which was apparently designed by Garry Trudeau. When it came to catching up on the state of the world, I prefer the Bernies.
Excessively Long Sex Scenes. Yes we get it, they are getting it on, but do we really need five minutes of that. What they should have done is the standard hollywood sex scene. You know, Smooch, Clothes falling onto the floor, the bare shoulders heavy breathing shot. Then the flamethrower, then the post-flamethrower reclining/cuddling.
Excessively Violent Fight scenes: The action was well done except for this point. I mean, partially it was the same gore from the comic, it just seemed more vivid on film. But some things were just over the top. For example, when the gang attacks Dan and Laurie, In the comic they incapacitate the would-be-muggers by knocking them out. In the movie they apparently, on instinct, shove bones out through skin, break necks, ect ect. I mean, it makes sense for Rorschach to fight like that, but I always got the impression that Dan was more the "Knock em out and leave em tied up for the cops" type than the "Smash their bone so it rips through their skin, then let them die of infection" type.
Dan as an Adrenaline Junky: Comic-Dan was a washed up loser who put his costume back on because he felt powerless, and did things after that out of instinct. Movie Dan was apparently some sort of adrenaline junky who thought that breaking into sing-sing mid-riot would be Fun, rather than something he felt obligated to do. It dosn't work with the idea that "Superheros are ridiculous" thing.
Adrian's new Fossil fuel Bent. Sure, it could be considered just part of working his new plan, but the way he constantly mentioned fossil fuels made it seem like they were just cashing in on a modern movement.


The People's Conclusion
It was a good movie, but it was a comic book adaptation, not a movie in it's own right. After seeing 300 I thought Zack Snyder was to random violence and shirtlessness what Michael Bay was to explosions. But it turns out, he just has an incredible knack for turning comics into films while keeping the style. It's not a great work of cinema by any means. That's something it lost by holding so closely to the comic, it couldn't develop it's own identity, which really limited it. So, it's definitely worth watching, but don't expect it to win any oscars next year. When it comes out on DvD, People will probably buy it, watch it once, say "That was a good movie", put it back on the shelf, and forget about it.

Turcano
2009-03-07, 05:08 AM
I just got back from watching the film, and I have to say it was probably as good as one could realistically hope for. Most of the changes they made were for valid reasons (the major exception being the removal of the Hobson's choice Rorschach gives), the cinematography and special effects were first-rate, the casting was brilliant, and I especially like how they worked the Minutemen into the intro.

And they kept the Pagliacci joke in.

Xuincherguixe
2009-03-07, 06:07 AM
I don't watch movies for awhile past opening night. Standing in line is annoying.

So, I usually wait a week or two, which is usually enough to avoid hideously long lines.

EvilDMMk3
2009-03-07, 06:32 AM
Two minutes of watching Dan's bare ass rhythmically gyrating up and down as he humped Laurie on the control panel of his ship was important characterization?More than that. It has ruined one of my favorite songs because now the connotations are all messed around.

comicshorse
2009-03-07, 06:43 AM
Saw it yesterday and yes I loved it. Thought it fitted everything it needed to in though naturally things were left out. ( Unfortunately including Rorschach's " Won't insult legendary underworld solidarity by suggesting you give upname without torture " line).
I was pleasantly suprised by Ozymandias, from the trailers I thought the actor was all wrong for the part but I think he carried it excellently. BTW is it just me or wre we menat to think from his performance that Ozymandias is gay ? Cause I couldn't help get that impression

Ethrael
2009-03-07, 07:21 AM
Nope, haven't seen in become some &£*£()" "BFFFC" deems the violence to £$*%*&) bloody for people under %@#*$£& 18 to see! :furious:

So there's an alternate ending, eh? I'd be so interested to see how that fits in.

Mauve Shirt
2009-03-07, 08:48 AM
I saw it last night. I have quite a few gripes. And by gripes I mean the movie was barely redeemable.
It starts with a montage meant to deal with all of the history behind costumed heroes that was brought up in the comic, but I honestly don't see how anyone who hadn't read the book would understand it, so it seemed to say "If you haven't read it, you're not welcome here." Then came the ending, which basically said "If you have read the comic, you're not welcome here."
That's a bit harsh. The movie had it's moments. I liked the bits with Dr. Manhattan on Mars, and some of Rorschach's lines.
But HOW ON EARTH IS THAT ENDING ANY EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THAN THE ORIGINAL ENDING?! Framing Dr. Manhattan makes NO SENSE AT ALL, and then they throw in Veidt's genetically engineered pet whose name I can't remember just for kicks, and that gets no explanation. Why put it in there if it wasn't important? It's just pretty. If you can CGI that, why would you not just put a bit of dialogue about genetic engineering and then have the original ending? You know, like in the comic book. It's kind of like leaving the explanation of Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs out of HP3. Completely unnecessary, just a bit more dialogue and you would have no gaping plot hole.
My biggest problem was the gore. The comic book is very very violent, I know, but The Dark Knight pulled off insane violence with no gore, it was completely unnecessary. I've never seen 300, but from what I've heard even in that the blood was stylized. The gore here was unnecessary. ESPECIALLY with Dr. Manhattan's vaporization. In the comic he just breaks them down to their molecules, it's completely bloodless, but for NO REASON AT ALL they make it bloody and gross.
Oh, and I didn't like the soundtrack. And they took out the ending conversation between Rorschach and Manhattan, which was one of my favorite parts of the book, and instead gave that line to Laurie.

EvilDMMk3
2009-03-07, 10:22 AM
HOW ON EARTH IS THAT ENDING ANY EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THAN THE ORIGINAL ENDING?!

Spoiler tags.
A bit shouty aren't we?
How, exactly, is a one off alien threat that weakens only one side but is never repeated and never reinforced any more credible?
The squid would require about another 15 minutes of film to explain the origins and to show the bare minimum needed to prevent it looking like an ass pull, as well as looking pretty danm stupid.
With the ending we have the world is left with the impression that it will get another does if it ever gets that close to world war again. It has a real deterrent factor.


Although I do agree with you about the vaporisation thing.

MammonAzrael
2009-03-07, 10:53 AM
I'm pleasantly surprised by the low number of people that are enraged by the film. I can't wait to go see it this weekend.

Though I'm now a little worried about staring at Dan's ass for two minutes (to what I'm guessing is Allelujah?)

EvilDMMk3
2009-03-07, 11:28 AM
I'm pleasantly surprised by the low number of people that are enraged by the film. I can't wait to go see it this weekend.

Though I'm now a little worried about staring at Dan's ass for two minutes (to what I'm guessing is Allelujah?)Yeah the Archie sex scene...

InkEyes
2009-03-07, 11:35 AM
Yea, the sex scenes were too much and the violence got pretty brutal at times, but those were my two major gripes (knew the change to the ending was coming so I suppose I was jaded to that). Overall, I think the thing I found most odd was how many of my friends (only one of whom had read the comic before) thought Rorschach was their favorite character. I suppose some of it comes from the fewer extreme-tinfoilhattery moments he has while leaving in all of his tragic moments.

Gamiress
2009-03-07, 11:35 AM
I'm pleasantly surprised by the low number of people that are enraged by the film. I can't wait to go see it this weekend.

Though I'm now a little worried about staring at Dan's ass for two minutes (to what I'm guessing is Allelujah?)

Remember that scene where Dan and Laurie have sex in Archie after that burning building rescue? Laurie's pushed up against the console and accidentally presses the flamethrower button again?

It's nowhere near as bad as people are saying, the thing is it's done to Leonard Cohen's original "Hallelujah", which was kind of an odd choice but most people are used to the (Rufus Wainright?) version that was in Shrek and Lord of War, and Leonard Cohen's voice can grate if you haven't acquired the taste for it.

Personally, I didn't mind it, and the flamethrower got a round of applause from the theater I was in.

Cynan Machae
2009-03-07, 12:30 PM
Well, I haven't read the comic and I really didn't know what to expect abpti it when I went to watch it, so I can say it was definitely special.

For someone who didn't know anything about it, the first hour was pretty confusing. I'm not sure they chose the best method for introducing characters/story.

Still, I enjoyed the movie, Rorschach's character was pretty awesome, I kinda liked that ending (but now I'm curious about that other), and overall I think it was pretty good.

But I think I'd have to watch it again to fully understand :smalltongue:

KnightDisciple
2009-03-07, 12:34 PM
Remember that scene where Dan and Laurie have sex in Archie after that burning building rescue? Laurie's pushed up against the console and accidentally presses the flamethrower button again?

It's nowhere near as bad as people are saying, the thing is it's done to Leonard Cohen's original "Hallelujah", which was kind of an odd choice but most people are used to the (Rufus Wainright?) version that was in Shrek and Lord of War, and Leonard Cohen's voice can grate if you haven't acquired the taste for it.

Personally, I didn't mind it, and the flamethrower got a round of applause from the theater I was in.

...It is as bad as we're saying. It was pointless and gratuitous; 2 freakin' minutes? Really? And it was pretty much soft-core. Yeah, that one scene, all by itself, frustrated me the most.

BRC
2009-03-07, 12:53 PM
...It is as bad as we're saying. It was pointless and gratuitous; 2 freakin' minutes? Really? And it was pretty much soft-core. Yeah, that one scene, all by itself, frustrated me the most.
Agleed. Really, they cut out Hollis Mason's murder, apparently in exchange for that scene. I mean, REALLY. Instead of the standard Smooch, shot of clothes falling onto the floor, shoulders-up heavy breathing shot, then flamethrower, then the aftermath. I mean, do you know what I would buy. Rather than the special edition directors cut, how about the special edition directors apology. The sex scene is replaced by Snyder apologizing for one minute, the rest of the time is spent by having the actors beat him with chairs while screaming "Thanks for putting a stigma on our careers, *******"

Fawkes
2009-03-07, 01:09 PM
In this topic: overreaction. :smallsmile:

KnightDisciple
2009-03-07, 01:32 PM
In this topic: overreaction. :smallsmile:

On whose part? :smallconfused:

LordZarth
2009-03-07, 01:58 PM
Seriously? That's awesome.

Yeah, it is.

The Neoclassic
2009-03-07, 02:12 PM
But HOW ON EARTH IS THAT ENDING ANY EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THAN THE ORIGINAL ENDING?! Framing Dr. Manhattan makes NO SENSE AT ALL.




How, exactly, is a one off alien threat that weakens only one side but is never repeated and never reinforced any more credible?
The squid would require about another 15 minutes of film to explain the origins and to show the bare minimum needed to prevent it looking like an ass pull, as well as looking pretty danm stupid.
With the ending we have the world is left with the impression that it will get another does if it ever gets that close to world war again. It has a real deterrent factor.


I am entirely with EvilDMMk3 on this one. The new ending makes far more sense; it would be far more effective as a deterrent. Heck, a random squid from the sky onto the US, with no other evidence of aliens around, might in fact lead the Soviets to use that catastrophe as an opportunity to bomb the US. With major cities around the world destroyed by Dr. Manhattan, the entire world is at risk and therefore ought to unite to protect themselves against a common enemy or at least get rid of their nuclear weapons and stop being on the verge of war (depending how they interpret his motives).

As for the movie not being approachable to those who haven't read the comic... Honestly, I don't care. Maybe I should, but I don't. For me, it was sort of an enhancement to the comic. If I was packaging a deluxe version of Watchmen (the graphic novel), I'd include the movie as the bonus CD in the back instead of just having a book-on-tape (well, CD) version. I can't imagine it standing alone, without or before the original comic, but as a fan of the graphic novel, I'd far rather have it as is than something that wasn't loyal to the comic but was more accessible to others. Of course, this is all just my opinion and approach to the movie, and a lot of people won't agree with me. However, film is done and made, and I'm very pleased with it for my purposes. :smallbiggrin:

RabbitHoleLost
2009-03-07, 02:15 PM
In this topic: overreaction. :smallsmile:

For srs.
Nitpicking; it makes me lawl.

And I'm certain most of you who are unhappy, would have been unhappy with anything they produced.
This is why I'm glad I'm not a hardcore fan; I can actually enjoy the movie :smallsmile:

The_JJ
2009-03-07, 02:24 PM
My gripe with the ending was not the Manhatten bomb/squid bomb bit, but the way it was framed. In the original, it's an evil act that needed doing and everyone reacts as such, except for Mr. 'No Compromise.' But in the movie, Dan flips out and accuses Ozy of screwing with 'human nature.' AGH!!!

That's the point. Both Ozy and the Comedian saw where things were going, driven, by human nature, to an inevitable nuclear holocaust. The Comedian laughed it off and Ozy tried to change it. It's... grr. Anyway, they did well for themselves up to that point.

Plus Ozy was poorly casted and played, IMHO.

The Linker
2009-03-07, 02:28 PM
I throw my lot in with the 'Manhattan Threat > Alien Threat' lot too.

Seriously, when did a random alien attack become more credible than an attack by the guy everyone already knows a) exists, b) can level towns, and c) doesn't care about human life? :smallconfused:

I will say, though, that they are lucky that Russia didn't say "Those American dogs have unleashed a monstrosity on this world! We could be next! What have they done!? BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF THEM!" Alternatively, Veidt is lucky that the U.S. and Russia are foolhardy enough to think they could take Dr. Manhattan at ALL. :smalltongue:

Innis Cabal
2009-03-07, 02:31 PM
The People's Conclusion
It was a good movie, but it was a comic book adaptation, not a movie in it's own right. After seeing 300 I thought Zack Snyder was to random violence and shirtlessness what Michael Bay was to explosions. But it turns out, he just has an incredible knack for turning comics into films while keeping the style. It's not a great work of cinema by any means. That's something it lost by holding so closely to the comic, it couldn't develop it's own identity, which really limited it. So, it's definitely worth watching, but don't expect it to win any oscars next year. When it comes out on DvD, People will probably buy it, watch it once, say "That was a good movie", put it back on the shelf, and forget about it.

Had it not stuck so close to the comic people would have hated it for not being close enough to the comic. So saying it was "stifled" by its adaption is...well at the very least I didn't feel that way about it. I went to see the Watchmen because it was a great comic. I didn't go to see it because it was going to be a geat movie in its own right.

It just seems that...people who weren't going to like it were going to find -something- to not like about it. And alot of negative critics have used the "its to close to the comic" excuse when they should be praising it for being such a close adaption....because isn't that what we wanted? Really?

zeratul
2009-03-07, 02:39 PM
The People's Conclusion
It was a good movie, but it was a comic book adaptation, not a movie in it's own right. After seeing 300 I thought Zack Snyder was to random violence and shirtlessness what Michael Bay was to explosions. But it turns out, he just has an incredible knack for turning comics into films while keeping the style. It's not a great work of cinema by any means. That's something it lost by holding so closely to the comic, it couldn't develop it's own identity, which really limited it. So, it's definitely worth watching, but don't expect it to win any oscars next year. When it comes out on DvD, People will probably buy it, watch it once, say "That was a good movie", put it back on the shelf, and forget about it.

To be fair the comic of 300 was basically exactly the same as the movie except only the blood and shiftlessness part with none of that subplot back in Greece with Leonidas's wife. So the shiftlessness and gore were really just being true to the story, it's the parts without those two things that were added in.

BRC
2009-03-07, 02:39 PM
Had it not stuck so close to the comic people would have hated it for not being close enough to the comic. So saying it was "stifled" by its adaption is...well at the very least I didn't feel that way about it. I went to see the Watchmen because it was a great comic. I didn't go to see it because it was going to be a geat movie in its own right.

It just seems that...people who weren't going to like it were going to find -something- to not like about it. And alot of negative critics have used the "its to close to the comic" excuse when they should be praising it for being such a close adaption....because isn't that what we wanted? Really?
Oh certainly. I agree with everything said above, there was a reason people said it was a graphic novel that couldn't be made into a movie.

Innis Cabal
2009-03-07, 02:47 PM
And I think they were wrong for the most part. Some things were left out and some things were changed but...the Squid wasn't important to the storyline. It wasn't, or it would have come up more then in just the last section of the last volume. What was important was that Ozy wanted to save the world, and went about it by killing people...and alot of people at that.

The sex scene was silly...but really...it is praise worthy. Was it something I wanted to see on the big screen? Absolutly not. But it is a step in the direction in movies to make sex acceptable. In a violent and bleak world if all people can really complain about is some ass shots and a sex scene that dosn't even last a full 2 minutes....I just feel that its a bang up movie all around.

And I vehemently disagree with the improper casting of Ozy. How anyone could have done a better job is beyond me, and he slammed that role out. Ozy wasn't a warm or caring person, and neither was the actor playing him, he was cold, unforgiving and thought he knew best for the world. Exactly like the comic version.

Starscream
2009-03-07, 03:38 PM
Had it not stuck so close to the comic people would have hated it for not being close enough to the comic. So saying it was "stifled" by its adaption is...well at the very least I didn't feel that way about it. I went to see the Watchmen because it was a great comic. I didn't go to see it because it was going to be a geat movie in its own right.

I agree. Having read a bunch of reviews, the most common complaint is that it is too much a movie "for the fans", and not something Average Joe from Podunk will be into.

Which is exactly how it should be. I'd say a good 90% of movies made in this country are done with Joe in mind, and fie on anyone who wants something more challenging. If they had dumbed it down for popular consumption the fans would have thrown a fit. And the non-fans wouldn't have gone to see it anyway, because what would have made it different from every other action film?

Instead they made a film that the people who have read the book will enjoy, although as displayed by this thread we are not above complaining about 2 minutes of a 166 minute film. And I personally think that most of the non-fans will get a kick out of it too.

Innis Cabal
2009-03-07, 03:44 PM
I took my place of business to see the movie, a way of getting out of the confining walls and into the public just to hang out. Albiest this movie might not have been the best to make connections with the people who work under me and the ones who work just above me...but they all seemed to enjoy it. Which I guess is my point.

The people who never even heard of the Watchmen loved it, only a few finding Jon's long winded nature annoying and some finding the "gore" a little much. But all in all out of 20 people 2 people out right hated it, while the rest either loved it or thought it was one of the best movies they've seen.

Ravens_cry
2009-03-07, 04:48 PM
Yes I saw it. Some incredibly gruesome parts, but felt appropriate for the most part. I can see why they changed the part with the child murderer and Rorschach. Now, it would feel too much like a rip-off of Saw. I know Watchmen came first, but not the movie.
I am sorry, but I didn't like the Ozymandias costume or the body type of the actor who played him. He is supposed to be more then just the 'smartest man alive', he is also supposed to be at the near peak of physical perfection, a man who who would be king, who seeks to save us from ourselves.. In short, a Ruler with a capital R. Rightly or wrongly, he did stop nuclear annihilation. You can't argue with results, as they say. Regal, even if a mass-murderer.
Instead he comes off to me as a some kind of European Seth Green, in a goofy costume.

EvilDMMk3
2009-03-07, 04:51 PM
As for the movie not being approachable to those who haven't read the comic...4 out of 7 of the people I went with had never read the Graphic Novel and one had only got to part 2. They loved it.

Nevrmore
2009-03-07, 04:51 PM
Yes I saw it. Some incredibly gruesome parts, but felt appropriate for the most part. I can see why they changed the part with the child murderer and Rorschach. Now, it would feel too much like a rip-off of Saw. I know Watchmen came first, but not the movie.
Mad. Max.

Mad Max.

MAD MAX.

MAD F*$%^^ING MAX.

Anyone who doesn't know that Saw ripped off Mad Max for the first movie needs to go off in a dark, cold place and contemplate the state of their life.

T-O-E
2009-03-07, 04:54 PM
Definitely a 'love-it-or-hate-it' film.

I'm hoping to love it.

toddex
2009-03-07, 04:57 PM
Whats up with no tentacle beast psionic bomb!? Lame...

EvilDMMk3
2009-03-07, 05:05 PM
Mad. Max.

Mad Max.

MAD MAX.

MAD F*$%^^ING MAX.

Anyone who doesn't know that Saw ripped off Mad Max for the first movie needs to go off in a dark, cold place and contemplate the state of their life.

Ah but Joe idiot cinema goer cannot remember Mad Max.

Horatio@Bridge
2009-03-07, 05:10 PM
I went to see Watchmen with a friend who hadn't read the book. When I read the book, I lost a day to it--the morning to finishing it, the rest of the day to sitting in a chair, staring at the computer screen, and thinking "Man..." When we got out of the 10:45 showing of the movie at 2:00 a.m., we could not go to sleep and ended up hanging out until about 3:30 a.m. I didn't go to bed until 5. That's how much impact the movie had. So, yeah, it's a good movie. You should go see it...if you're over 18. I don't recommend it to anyone under 18, because you will never have faith in humanity again. Go watch Lord of the Rings until you understand man's capability of triumphing over evil, then go see the Watchmen so you can understand just how amazing it is that we can overcome evil (and did, evidenced by the fact that we're still here, and that without blowing New York up).

As for the sex and gore...well, for one thing, it makes people think twice about seeing the movie. Which is good. No-one who's not mature enough to handle that much blood and sex should go to see this movie. You will kill yourself. Or at least lose your job from the depression.

As for the sex scene...I have to say, that is the best utilized sex scene I have ever seen. They were actually developing the characters with it! It's important that Dan was impotent before taking up the mask again, and that he regained his potency when he accepted his nature as a hero. The realization of his own power (through the sex) is what caused him to decide to break Rorschach out. Directly, cause and effect. That decision makes a lot less sense without the sex scene. And the sex scene isn't as significant if we just skip over it. So, color me impressed. Someone actually used a sex scene to good effect! I hope that this is a trend, because that's a huge portion of the human condition that we ignore. I'd like to see it explored responsibly rather than leaving it to porn to be cheapened and degraded. As a married person, those scenes really have some resonance. So, yeah, a lot of words to say well done. :-p

BRC
2009-03-07, 05:19 PM
Do you know what theatres should have done. Timed the first showing so it would end at 11:55 PM, or started it at 11:55 PM.

The Linker
2009-03-07, 05:34 PM
On that note, theaters in New York should have ended movies at 11:20, so the viewers get out at about 11:25, and then set up a video camera and see how many people look at their watches, look down the street, say "Oh, CRAP," and start running for their lives or hugging the guy closest to them. :smalltongue:

Trog
2009-03-07, 06:01 PM
Trog's Movie review:

Overall a big thumbs up. With one exception.

I liked the ending in the movie better than the one in the book. By eliminating the squid you bring it all back to the incredible power being a product of Dr. Manhattan alone, instead of some other experiment that only seemed to fit in light of all the extra material (about genetics and scientist kidnappings and the like) the movie simply couldn't fit it. Plus it tied in the machine that Manhattan was working on in his first scene as the device which helped to commit the mass destruction. Which I thought was neat.

In light of the lack of a genetically engineered psychic Squid thingy, they should have eliminated Bubastis altogether. It's existence made no sense if you hadn't read the comic. I imagine it would have felt like that one SouthPark episode with the mad scientist guy addressing the crowd with his creepy little mini me at his side. Scientist: You have to listen to me It's ver- Chef(interrupting): Hey man what the hell is that thang?

And now the exception (caution: rant ahead)

The music. Oh my god you got me started on the music. :smallfurious: The score for this film -SUCKED!- Period. There basically was no score. Can you hum the Watchmen theme like you could the Star Wars theme? The Superman theme? The Lord of the Ring theme? No. Why? Because the soundtrack played like a golden oldies iTunes playlist instead of a true soundtrack, that's why. It was an absolutely pathetic attempt. A score should help layer and intensify a scene. Scary moment with no score is less scary. Scary moment with a scary score drives the scary home even more. None of the songs chosen accomplished this, the whole point of the score in the first place. Therefore, despite liking many of the songs in the score on their own merits, I must call a fail a fail. It was a deeply disappointing and pathetic attempt that kept me from emersing myself in the film. It kept making me stop and go "wtf is with this music?" I mean flight of the valveries? Come -on-. Didn't they use that to death on all sorts of other things already? Like Alpo dog food commericals and the like? They must have run short on budget with all the special effects to have enough cash to pay for a decent composer.

So the main bullet points here are:
• Good move with story improvements that worked in light of having to cut a large amount of material from the comic
• Score that totally blew

BRC
2009-03-07, 06:04 PM
I actually Liked their use of Flight of the Valkrines and Jimi Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower", but it might just be because those are both very very awesome songs, and it worked with the surrealized image of that Vietnam scene.

Semidi
2009-03-07, 06:51 PM
When the first chords started up in All Along the Watchtower I thought to myself, "WTF? I don't see what Hendrix has to do with any of this." Then they ended it about 20 seconds later and I was wondering, "WTF? What did Hendrix have to do with any of that." I mean, it seemed completely arbitrary. It was like the director was going, "Oh that's a kick-ass song, let's stick in in somewhere."

I thought the Bob Dylan was done well however. And Flight of the Valkyries reminded me of Apocalypse Now, so I guess that was OK as the scene was Vietnam.

Nevrmore
2009-03-07, 06:59 PM
99 Luftballoons, Hallelujah, and The Sound of Silence, for me, were all completely unnecessary.

I enjoyed Flight of the Valkyries and All Along the Watchtower, though.

EvilDMMk3
2009-03-07, 07:04 PM
I think I am in agreement with the majority of you in your complaints, mind you I think that any film for which the main gripes seem to be a 2 minutes scene and the choice of music can be considered worth while.

T-O-E
2009-03-07, 07:11 PM
This thread should have the ':smallsmile:' icon.

The Linker
2009-03-07, 07:31 PM
With the Ride of the Valkyries theme... well, I guess it was a good choice. Symbolically, it was the best fit. But I usually prefer my music scores to be chosen based solely on the tune itself, and how it sounds. For example, when watching an AMV, I don't really care if the lyrics are matched up with the image -- at least, if it detracts from the production in every other way, like if it's a fast-paced battle scene over a slow section of the song. So with that in mind, I really felt the tune killed the scene for me. It could be because I had seen the beginning of that scene in commercials, with the view behind the soldiers as they gaze in awe towards the gigantic blue man advancing upon them. Lemme tell ya, when I imagined what the music would be like at that point, Ride of the Valkyries did NOT come up. :smalltongue: But if that scene had been a total surpise? Not knowing what the soldiers were staring at, hearing the Valkyries theme start up, and THEN seeing Dr. Manhattan coming up the hill? I imagine that would have been pretty epic.

DrakebloodIV
2009-03-07, 07:46 PM
Did anyone else notes the quote from Percy Bysshe Shelly's poem Ozymandias on the Rameses II statue. It goes something like this:


My Name Is Ozymandias
King of Kings
Look on My works
Ye mighty, and Despair!


Just did a report on that poem for LA, because I read the watchmen I chose that poem. The movie, poem and comic are all very well tied together and I empathize with Ozymandias in the story much more than any other character.

Om
2009-03-07, 09:20 PM
Saw the film tonight and overall thumbs up... I suppose. Nothing really jumped out as glaring wrong (its a Zach Snyder film - you're going to get gore, sex, and slow-mo fights. Accept it) but then it wasn't anything special either. Nothing jumped out to give it a 'whoa' factor or a life of its own. It was a faithful comic book adaptation (almost panel by panel in places) and little more. On the one hand I'd have preferred if Snyder had run with the concept and done something new with it... on the other I'm just glad he didn't mess it up

On the plus side, and this is a big one, my friends who had not read the comic enjoyed it immensely. Largely this was the comic's influence shining through (one common remark was how they'd expected a standard superhero flick but had been completely broadsided) and I expect that if I hadn't read the comic first then I'd be equally impressed

Raistlin1040
2009-03-07, 09:32 PM
Having not seen the movie yet, I'm guessing some of the songs are because they're in the comic itself. I remember All Along the Watchtower in particular, was definately in there.

Weezer
2009-03-07, 09:44 PM
I saw it tonight and I loved it, it captured the comic almost perfectly. There weren't any glaring flaws in it and I think the changes that they made were intellegent and were done for a good reason. The one thing that I wished was that they were able to incorporate some of the small side plots into the story, like the psychologist or the newspaper vendor, its understandable to cut them and I don't blame them but in a perfect world.
@Semidi: I think the main reason that they had All Along the Watchtower in it was because a few lines were at the beginning of one of the chapters of the comic.

Ravens_cry
2009-03-07, 09:52 PM
The score sucked, Valkyries is well known, but what was once ironic, like Wonderful World, has become stereotypical. I love oldies, but it takes more then a near random compilation of classics to make a musical score. The Sound of Silence is one my favourite songs ever, but it is a night rain song to me, not a day rain. A night rain the city, surrounded by a sea of strangers, the glaring lights distorted in the trembling puddles. Hallelujah is nice, though a more intimate version would have been nicer in my opinion. Maybe Jeff Bucklys. One thing I really felt was missing from the movie was the fact that because of the influence of Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias, some technolgies were different, even better then, contemporary. I am glad they got rid of those goofy helmets from the book though. Yes I noticed the poem. How could one not, if one knew about it?
I wish they had shown more of Mars in the Clock Ship scenes. The special effects felt uneven to me. Some parts felt absolutely real, while others felt. . .not so much.

hanzo66
2009-03-07, 10:00 PM
Saw the movie.

Liked it.

Felt as if they were trying Soundtrack Dissonance, with varying results.

Ending was changed, but slightly.

Few scenes had to be cut for time purposes (likely to be on DVD).

Actors did their part well.

Opening was ace.

Recommendable if enjoy book.

The Linker
2009-03-07, 10:11 PM
Heh, way to talk like Rorschach. :smallbiggrin:

The Extinguisher
2009-03-07, 10:26 PM
I loved the ending. Much more than in the book.

I've heard people complaining about Dan attacking Ozy and all that, but it was needed.

Excpet, Ozy still gets away with it.

In the book, the minor characters, the news vendor, the police, the taxi driver, the psychologist and his wife are all there to make us connect with the real New Yorkers. The reason they all die, is because we aren't supposed to like Ozy and his plan. Yes, there's world piece, but at what cost. We are personally involved with these people's lifes, so it's a tradgey to see them die.

In the movie, there isn't that connection, so if everyone had went along with Ozy's plan, it would have been a differenet effect. Lives were lost, but we didn't know them, why should we care. Letting Dan see Rorschach's death and realizing just what had happened allows us to again not like what Ozy has done. It's less of the sickened effect in the book, but it still works. They kept quiet, but Ozy is still the bad guy. It's the same ending, just different.



And I liked the Soundtrack. I do agree they could have had something original, but I still think it fit. Or fit by not fitting.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-03-07, 10:26 PM
It was awesome.

Almost as awesome as this adaptation (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797).

I just wish the hilarious pendulum penis action scene had been in 300, where it really belonged. That comic was the most deliciously homoerotic refuttal of homoeroticism ever. (Also, that scene where the camera kept ALMOST dipping below Manhattan's waist was a bit silly. They were clearly doing it on purpose. "Oh, we're going to see his nuclear tackle again -- oh, no. Oh, now -- oh, no.")

1488
2009-03-07, 10:36 PM
It was almost as bad as the comic.

The Linker
2009-03-07, 10:38 PM
Yeah, they treated it just like they did in the comic. They'd keep it out of panel or behind something when it was convenient and it wasn't a stretch, but they were definitely not afraid to show it.

Heh. The general consensus among my friends and I, regarding our feelings during the movie, was around 25% "Hey, that's a neat change," 10% "WHY'D THEY DO THAT," 30% "Ooooh, pretty special effects and fight scenes," and 45% "don't look at his package don't look at his package don't look at his package don't look at his oh dear god there's five of them now don't look at his package don't look at his package" :smalltongue:

I'm mostly kidding. We weren't THAT bad. :P

@^: I know, kickass, right? :smallbiggrin:

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-07, 10:39 PM
It was almost as bad as the comic.

As bad? Why, pray tell. From what I've heard of Watchmen, and what I saw in the movie, it's like the Citizen Kane of superhero comics.

Ascension
2009-03-07, 10:40 PM
It was almost as bad as the comic.

Flamebait much?

The Linker
2009-03-07, 10:41 PM
Guys, really, I'm pretty sure he joined 5 minutes ago to see how many reactions he could get. Leave him be. Heck, he just made a (semi-)flamebait thread in the Erfworld forum.

1488
2009-03-07, 10:41 PM
As bad? Why, pray tell. From what I've heard of Watchmen, and what I saw in the movie, it's like the Citizen Kane of superhero comics.

It is like the Citizen Kane of superhero comics. It's that overhyped piece of tripe that everyone in the universe claims is their favorite out of some misguided belief that saying so gives them some credibility.

At least it isn't the "To Kill A Mockingbird" of superhero comics...

Ascension
2009-03-07, 10:42 PM
Guys, really, I'm pretty sure he joined 5 minutes ago to see how many reactions he could get. Leave him be. Heck, he just made a flamebait thread in the Erfworld forum.

Agreed. Feed not the troll.

Hawriel
2009-03-07, 10:44 PM
Well I saw the 1201 showing thursday. Tried to post but the sight crashed AGAIN when I hit submit. So this will fall a little flat....or limp on page 5/6.

And the Oscar for best supporting actor goes to......Big blue penis!!!!

Really i had no idea that Watchmen would be R. I just assumed that it would be toned down to PG-13. The first time you see Manhattan he turns around and one of the other characters on screen steps forward blocking his waist and then a cut to the next sceen. That convinced me of my assumtion. Then well Penis. then penis to the fourth power! It got to the point that it was a running gag for the audiance. And the best part is that I saw it in IMAX. :smalltongue:

I liked it. I liked the movie alot. It was a very good adeptation of the book. Haley as Rorschach was freakin perfect. So was Crudup. When I saw the trailers I thought their voices where all wrong. Haley a forced batman sound and Crudup to leavit to beaver with emotion. I was totaly wrong. I know alot of you didnt like Wilson or Akerman as Owl and Silk. I thought they did a good job. Sure they where a little weak at times but for the most part I really liked them.

There are only two things that come to mind that should not have been cut out. The origional owls murder and the worry by government officials and military officers about Doctor Manhattan. The second one is easy. It would have given wait to the cancer accusation and helped to show the real fear peaple already had for Manhattan. As for Hollis's death, it would have strengthen the mask killer angle. It was also an important moment for Dan.

Alot of reviewers are very critical of the violence in Watmen. I find this not only obserd but totaly shows that these peaple are blind to what Moore and Snyder are doing. The raw violence of Watchmen is for comic books that the beans where for cowboy movies in Blazing Saddles. Comic books purposely clean up alot of the violence and specificly the injury caused be it. Do you really think Batman doesnt cripple or grievously injury most of the thugs he beats the crap out of? Or Captain America, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, The Flash or even Spiderman? Yes if you look at it in a realistic light they are causing seriouse bodily harm to peaple. Watchmen is just being honest about it. These peaple are vigilanties, they have no restriction on their behavior other than their own concience. They do not have the same rules as cops. Exessive force meens nothing to them. And after a while they will start to injoy it. They are only beating up criminal scum after all. Yes even Spidy to a degree.

Walking Target.
Thank you for linking Eberts review I was looking for it. I always like his take on movies even if I didnt agree with him. This review proves to me his professionalism. Not just in reviewing films but trying to understand what they are about. His admistion at the end of the article to wanting to see the movie again, IN IMAX, so he can see things he may have missed or help his understanding not only speeks to him as a professional but to the Watchmen as movie.

1488
2009-03-07, 10:46 PM
Calling me a troll only proves that you are insecure of your own opinion. At least I don't go around making hateful assumptions about other posters.

Ascension
2009-03-07, 10:51 PM
Calling me a troll only proves that you are insecure of your own opinion. At least I don't go around making hateful assumptions about other posters.

And at least I don't post criticism in threads without giving any reasoning to support it. At least tell us why you didn't like the graphic novel/movie. I do not fear debate, I fear mudslinging.

Telonius
2009-03-07, 10:53 PM
Having not seen the movie yet, I'm guessing some of the songs are because they're in the comic itself. I remember All Along the Watchtower in particular, was definately in there.

It's at the very end of Chapter X.
Rorschach and Nite Owl 2 are on the hoverbikes heading towards Ozymandias's lair in Antarctica. Ozy sees them, and pets Bubastis, who says (and I quote), "RR?" The last panel: "Outside in the distance, a wild cat did growl, two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl. - Bob Dylan."

It's also a pretty thematic song for several of the characters:

"No need to get excited, the thief he kindly spoke. There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. But you and I, we've been through that, and it's just not our fate. So let us not speak falsely now, the hour is getting late."

Helanna
2009-03-07, 11:06 PM
Just got back from seeing it with a group of friends who haven't read the novel.

I have to say, I loved it. There were a couple things I missed, but overall I think they did a fantastic job, and my friends agreed that it was very good.

Although I did have to explain an awful lot of the loose ends they never tied up in the movie, like the hydrogen symbol on Doctor Manhattan's head and Bubastis. And while I prefer the original alien ending, I didn't mind the adaptation, I think it worked better with the movie.

The music score . . . yeah, sucked, but ah well. And you can so hum the Watchmen theme - I believe Tsotha-lanti already linked to it? (I've watched that movie like 6 times in the last 20 minutes. It's addictive.)

afroakuma
2009-03-07, 11:39 PM
Calling me a troll only proves that you are insecure of your own opinion. At least I don't go around making hateful assumptions about other posters.

I checked your post record. You're clearly here to inflame.

Guys: please proceed with the discussion.


Ha-ha. Yes, I also laugh at people's honest opinions that are completely diverse from mine for the sake of getting in a cheap shot without any form of an actual rebuttal.

We're laughing at the over-the-top nature of the critique.

1488
2009-03-07, 11:41 PM
I checked your post record. You're clearly here to inflame.

I checked your posts and found out that you disagreed with someone one time. Don't worry, though, I won't tell the mods and get you banned for flaming because I'm not petty.

The Neoclassic
2009-03-07, 11:49 PM
Ha-ha. Yes, I also laugh at people's honest opinions that are completely diverse from mine for the sake of getting in a cheap shot without any form of an actual rebuttal.

Seemed pretty clearly ridiculous to me, but maybe I'm way too much of a socialist to see it. :smalltongue: Shall I provide a more eloquent response?

There was very little about the blood and gore that was "sadomasochistic." There was so much of it because well, most R-rated movies have that much, it was in the graphic novel, and life as a crime fighter is a gory, not a glamorous or peaceful, existence. The sex scenes at worst waste time and at best develop characters (someone explained it well earlier in this thread); I don't understand why people are so bothered by sexuality, but that's probably just me.

Being soft and squishy and liberal wasn't really advocated at all. Not at all. The therapist who talked to Rorschach was pretty much like that and his optimism quickly failed upon hearing the brutal reality of what Rorschach had seen. The world is not a pretty place; liberalism in a demeaning sense (which is very clearly is how it is being used in the review) refers to a naive and innocent view of the world, while Watchmen is anything but naive and innocent. Possibly simplistic, but not naive.

Where is socialism advocated? Atheism? As I mentioned above, liberalism? The most admired/popular character with most people is, I believe, Rorschach, who absolutely scorns such things. He's probably the closest to a hero, in how he acts in the end, of any of them. He's the only one who gives his life in an attempt to tell the world how mislead they've been. The ending does not say what Ozymandias is doing is right; it quite clearly suggests otherwise, that such idealistic dreams as to eliminate war are simply not so easily achievable.

How is the movie "perverse"? It shows sex (not in any particularly disturbing way, except perhaps prostitutes who are clearly condemned in the scenes where they are showed) and violence (for the most part integral to the plot, tone, and purpose of the movie).

If faith is mocked, it is no reflection on God but rather how people approach religion, either by twisting their faith for their own purposes or falling away from it. I did not find any strongly anti-God sentiment in the film.

The review starts with the assumption that all things "liberal" are wrong: an international perspective, socialism, secular humanism, and atheism. It then assumes that Watchmen is supporting all of those things and that, indeed, that is the purpose of the movie. This is a conclusion that appears to be based far more on hype and nonsense than the actual content of the movie.

I hope this clears up why we find this movie review positively ludicrous.


And at least I don't post criticism in threads without giving any reasoning to support it. At least tell us why you didn't like the graphic novel/movie. I do not fear debate, I fear mudslinging.

Precisely.

afroakuma
2009-03-07, 11:58 PM
I found it ridiculous because most every negative review I've seen has gone this way: hardcore tumbling to this exact position. My reaction has been, "are you guys the normal reviewers?" because really, if this offends them this severely, I have a few other films I'd enjoy showing them.

But I think that particular review, and breakdowns thereof, might be tipping into politics/religion, so let's try to steer clear, alright?

Personally, I can't wait to see this movie. It appears I'm going to have to put up with some blue penis, but I can dodge a sex scene.

Ascension
2009-03-08, 12:00 AM
Personally, I can't wait to see this movie. It appears I'm going to have to put up with some blue penis, but I can dodge a sex scene.

Why are people so afraid of blue penis anyway? It's about as subtle as a penis can possibly be.

Dreiberg nudity is much scarier, even without the pot-belly from the comics.

afroakuma
2009-03-08, 12:03 AM
Why are people so afraid of blue penis anyway? It's about as subtle as a penis can possibly be.

Dreiberg nudity is much scarier, even without the pot-belly from the comics.

Hey, I said I'd sit through the penis and leave when the sex scene happened. :smalltongue:

And I'm fairly certain undersized and marble is more subtle than life-sized and glowing blue.

Ascension
2009-03-08, 12:28 AM
And I'm fairly certain undersized and marble is more subtle than life-sized and glowing blue.

Correction: About as subtle as a penis not carved from stone can be. Happy now? :smalltongue:

afroakuma
2009-03-08, 12:29 AM
You left out life-sized. :smallbiggrin:

nothingclever
2009-03-08, 12:38 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIhHema5PNg

The Neoclassic
2009-03-08, 12:43 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIhHema5PNg

That was really funny and quite well done!

Ascension
2009-03-08, 12:44 AM
That was really funny and quite well done!

Though I imagine actually knowing German would ruin it for you. ^^

Finn Solomon
2009-03-08, 12:46 AM
Manhattan ending just beats the squid ending. Even gods can make a mistake, and seriously, Alan Moore messed up with that one. Score one for Snyder. It's an amazing effort, kept very close to the spirit of the book and as people have commented, the only gripes are a sex scene which I felt was essential to developing character, slightly offsetting music and the prevalence of big blue penises. All things considered, it's a good time to be a comic book fan. If any of you still want to complain, clearly you're too young to remember the agony that was nipples on the Bat-suit and other similar crimes against comic book fandom.

puppyavenger
2009-03-08, 12:47 AM
Saw it tonight, it was really awesome. I haven't read the book on the opinion that it's usually better to judge these things on their own and compare them to the book after.


Admittedly when 99 Luftballoons started playing I was waiting for nuclear war when it got to the middle part o the song:smallsmile:

Rotipher
2009-03-08, 12:49 AM
Given that it was glowing, blue, and computer-generated, I didn't think it looked enough like a real human penis to warrant all this fuss. More like an anatomical dummy's, or porn sketched on the walls of a public restroom. It's not as if he was aroused in those scenes; it was just there, as bland a part of his body as his shins or his elbows.

In that light, objecting to Dr. Manhatten's nudity seems on par with insisting that the genitals of wild animals on a nature program be kept primly out of view.

BRC
2009-03-08, 12:52 AM
Re: Ending. I agree. The squid looked kind of silly, and may not have worked. What would have happened if Nixon said "HOLY S**T, THE REDS HAVE TEAMED UP WITH EXTRADIMENSIONAL ALIENS! Quickly, Henry, Start With the Nuking!"
Plus, making the squid left a trail a mile wide, and was clearly for that. I mean, sure Adrian was killing everybody who knew but...well... that plan usually ends in a loss of hat. (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20031017) This way, Occams razor says that Dr Manhattan went crazy and blew up cities, rather than famous philanthropist and former crimefighter Adrian Viedt was behind it.

Grynning
2009-03-08, 01:17 AM
Wow...a lot of talk about Jon's naughty bits...

Anyways - I just got back from it, and for the most part I thought it was a good adaptation, and I had a lot of fun watching it.

My one major annoyance was the very tacked on shots at the energy industry they threw in (basically just using Veidt as a mouthpiece to go "OIL COMPANIES ARE BAD!!!"). It especially didn't make sense to those of us who'd read the comic, because in the book Jon solved the energy issue years ago and the Cold War was still going strong.

Can Snyder not make a movie without shoehorning in some completely irrelevant political commentary? He did the same thing with that "freedom isn't free" BS in 300.

Edit: It may be unjust of me to blame Snyder. But the two films had different writers so he is the common element.

Semidi
2009-03-08, 01:19 AM
I was watching some B-Rolls on youtube. It looks like the Mason subplot was filmed, but it didn't make the theatrical release. So that's probably going to be in the DvD director's cut.

Grynning
2009-03-08, 01:20 AM
I was watching some B-Rolls on youtube. It looks like the Mason subplot was filmed, but it didn't make the theatrical release. So that's probably going to be in the DvD director's cut.

Supposedly so is the "Black Freighter" animated feature they did and the scenes at the news stand.

Nevrmore
2009-03-08, 01:20 AM
I was watching some B-Rolls on youtube. It looks like the Mason subplot was filmed, but it didn't make the theatrical release. So that's probably going to be in the DvD director's cut.
Yeah, it's confirmed that Mason's death and some more exposure to the Minutemen, including a scene with Mothman, will be in the director's cut.

Opal Tide
2009-03-08, 01:22 AM
Re: Music selection and All Along the Watchtower

I know not everyone agrees with the selection of music (which, as I previously stated, thought was excellent overall), there is some textual support for the inclusion of All along the Watchtower. In the 10th Chapter/ issue, the first page at the bottom read "Two riders were approaching", lines from said song.

Not sure if that is worth much more than a lukewarm bucket of spit, but there you go for those interested.

Also, I didn't have a huge problem with the violence. I think a lot of people missed the point, that superheroing (which I declare as a valid word, spell check be darned) is very violent. Lots of movies gloss over that fact but Watchmen actually makes the audience deal with this reality. It makes people uncomfortable and that is good, they should feel uncomfortable whenever they witness a real fight or a beating/rape.

On a final note, I didn't find Dr. Manhattan/s little Manhattan very distracting at all (and a lot less distracting than Nixon's HUGE nose).

Semidi
2009-03-08, 01:24 AM
Supposedly so is the "Black Freighter" animated feature they did and the scenes at the news stand.

The Black Freighter is direct to dvd I believe. It's currently on my Netflix list to come out on March 24 2009.

Grynning
2009-03-08, 01:30 AM
Also, I didn't have a huge problem with the violence. I think a lot of people missed the point, that superheroing (which I declare as a valid word, spell check be darned) is very violent. Lots of movies gloss over that fact but Watchmen actually makes the audience deal with this reality. It makes people uncomfortable and that is good, they should feel uncomfortable whenever they witness a real fight or a beating/rape.


This. I thought the violence in Watchmen (book and film) was presented pretty well. Violence isn't pretty, and should make you wince when it happens - doesn't matter who's committing it, it's still hurting people, and hurting them badly.

I did, however, find some of the changes to the violence in the movie odd - for instance, Rorshachs killing the child murderer by hacking up his head rather than the previously mentioned tied up with a hacksaw thing, and the use of the buzzsaw in the prison rather than an arc welder. The prison thing was especially weird since they left in the line where the little gangster guy says "I want to smell him cooking" when they didn't have the welder to "cook" him with.

They also left out young Kovaks burning the other kid's eye with the cigarette - guess they thought that was too graphic or something, but somehow the rest wasn't.

DomaDoma
2009-03-08, 01:36 AM
You know, come to think of it, I probably wouldn't be nearly as floored by Watchmen if I'd seen the movie first. I remember being absolutely shell-shocked - I think the only conscious thought I registered was "Wow, am I glad I didn't grow up in the Cold War. Everyone was apparently bat**** insane. Alan Moore not least."

And the movie... well, it doesn't give you much breathing space to be shell-shocked, or an I DID IT! to really rumble you, and while it does have a definite Cold War milieu, we don't get any of the totally irrational side that makes nuclear war so inevitable. I just don't think it'd have the same impact.

Nevrmore
2009-03-08, 01:40 AM
This. I thought the violence in Watchmen (book and film) was presented pretty well. Violence isn't pretty, and should make you wince when it happens - doesn't matter who's committing it, it's still hurting people, and hurting them badly.
Yes, but this point sometimes completely undermines the personalities of the characters that its coming from. Seriously, Laurie stabbed a thug in the neck with a knife, down to the hilt. That's NOT something that she would do. Snapping a mugger's arm is NOT something that Nite-Owl would do.

Finn Solomon
2009-03-08, 01:43 AM
He'd definitely do it if he thought the mugger would rape and kill Laurie. He loves her, love changes people and so on. Similarly, Laurie stabbing a thug leads to her willingness to shoot Ozy. I mean, if you won't kill someone who is trying to violate and possibly kill you, why would you shoot the smartest man in the world who's just prevented nuclear war?

Grynning
2009-03-08, 01:47 AM
Yes, but this point sometimes completely undermines the personalities of the characters that its coming from. Seriously, Laurie stabbed a thug in the neck with a knife, down to the hilt. That's NOT something that she would do. Snapping a mugger's arm is NOT something that Nite-Owl would do.

Pretty sure Dan did snap someone's arm in the comic, and he definitely tore a guy's nose off. They did make Laurie generally more bloodthirsty and willing to kill people, however, in the comic by the end she says she wants to carry a gun, and obviously neither she or Nite-Owl have any problems with the decidedly lethal methods of their buddy Rorschachs.

Nevrmore
2009-03-08, 01:47 AM
In the second circumstance, it had seemed like Ozy had just vaporized and killed Jon, not to mention all the people in New York, which severely upset her. Kind of easier to pull the trigger on someone responsible for such atrocities.

Remember here, Rorschach is considered to be dangerously psychotic because of his willingness to kill any criminal he comes across. He's considered creepy and insane by Laurie. and then two scenes later, she's turning a guy's head 180 degrees and using people as meat shields for bullets.

kpenguin
2009-03-08, 01:51 AM
I agree with Nevrmore. Laurie stabbing that dude in the neck and then using him as a meat shield felt so wildly out of character.

Finn Solomon
2009-03-08, 01:52 AM
Well okay, but I think my point about self-defense still stands. I think Rorschach's creepy too, but if some mugger was trying to kill me I wouldn't think twice about snapping his neck if I had the ability to do so.

The Linker
2009-03-08, 02:02 AM
In the second circumstance, it had seemed like Ozy had just vaporized and killed Jon...

She did? I thought for sure she had seen Nite Owl -- I mean, he WAS in the same room when she shot Ozymandias. If she didn't see him, then surely ten seconds later when he runs over to help her there would have been at least one "Oh thank god you're safe" line.

Grynning
2009-03-08, 02:06 AM
She did? I thought for sure she had seen Nite Owl -- I mean, he WAS in the same room when she shot Ozymandias. If she didn't see him, then surely ten seconds later when he runs over to help her there would have been at least one "Oh thank god you're safe" line.

I think you have some first name confusion happenin. Jon = Dr. Manhattan. Nite Owl's name is Dan. Ozy had just trapped Jon in the chamber with Bubastis and discorporated him when she tried to shoot him (I'm still fuzzy on where she got the gun in the movie. IIRC in the comic someone has it there, but my friend has my copy ATM.)

Nevrmore
2009-03-08, 02:16 AM
I think you have some first name confusion happenin. Jon = Dr. Manhattan. Nite Owl's name is Dan. Ozy had just trapped Jon in the chamber with Bubastis and discorporated him when she tried to shoot him (I'm still fuzzy on where she got the gun in the movie. IIRC in the comic someone has it there, but my friend has my copy ATM.)
In the comic she picks it up off of Detective Fine's body right before they teleport from New York to Karnak. In the movie it magically appears with no prior explanation.

Starscream
2009-03-08, 02:40 AM
Pretty sure Dan did snap someone's arm in the comic, and he definitely tore a guy's nose off. They did make Laurie generally more bloodthirsty and willing to kill people, however, in the comic by the end she says she wants to carry a gun, and obviously neither she or Nite-Owl have any problems with the decidedly lethal methods of their buddy Rorschachs.

I always thought that maybe she was implying that her new costumed identity was going to be The Comedian, thus signifying her acceptance of her origin. I think she makes some comment about adopting a similar mask as well.

The Comedian never adopts the black leather "gimp mask" in the movie, so there is no reference to this.

DrakebloodIV
2009-03-08, 03:46 AM
In the comic she picks it up off of Detective Fine's body right before they teleport from New York to Karnak. In the movie it magically appears with no prior explanation.

She picks it up off the cop during the jailbreak scene

Nevrmore
2009-03-08, 03:56 AM
She picks it up off the cop during the jailbreak scene
And where in God's name was she keeping it for like five scenes? In her cleavage?

Turcano
2009-03-08, 04:20 AM
I don't think she had that much cleavage.

Trog
2009-03-08, 04:32 AM
And where in God's name was she keeping it for like five scenes? In her cleavage?

Actually I was holding it for her. Then she hid me in her cleavage. Hope that clears that up. :smalltongue:

Also that linked video of Hitler reacting to the movie was hilarious. :smallamused:

shaxberd
2009-03-08, 04:52 AM
Overall, I enjoyed the movie. My one major complaint would be a single variation from the comic concerning Adrian Veidt. Showing him as cerebral and detached throughout the movie is very correct, except when he turns on the wall of monitors to ascertain whether his machinations have succeeded or failed. In the comics, this scene contains a very strong outburst of emotion that is to this point very uncharacteristic. The film would have been twice as good had this emotional outburst been included and done right. My other complaints are minor ones that will probably be addressed in the Director's Cut or the next film that they're supposedly planning based on the Tales of the Black Freighter. But I would still recommend this movie to anyone who isn't a huge fan of the song, "Hallelujah."

Kris on a Stick
2009-03-08, 08:05 AM
Saw it, it was great. Unfortunately, it seems the censorship monster was at it before I got there. No scenes were eaten as far as I can tell, but there was a glob of fuzz over Dr. Manhattan's crotch in all his scenes, and the child-napper's head suddenly contracted some bad pixelation from the cleaver stuck in it. Seriously cinema, why the hell bother to censor an R-rated movie. :smallannoyed:
Oh, and of course they censored the cleaver bit, but left the buzz-saw bit untouched, despite the fact that the cleaver->head fusion was already partially hidden by some shadows anyway, but the buzz saw bit was broad daylight, right in your face. :smallsigh:

Well, besides the local issues, I wish the hadn't made the costumed heroes so superhuman. It sort of ruins the bit where O' catches the bullet when we've just seen him fling a heavy golden chair and beat up two men at the same time, both of which who have already been established as being of twitch-and-break-someone's-neck power.

Ride of the Valkyries was sort of... hilarious.... I cracked up at that part. The rest of the score was fine though.

Anyway... I think that's all I have to say...

EvilDMMk3
2009-03-08, 08:24 AM
Out of curiosity, where are you from KidKris?

_Zoot_
2009-03-08, 08:33 AM
Well, i really liked it, the gore didn't bother me at all, in fact i found it pleasant as i had been expecting a superhero movie in the more traditional sense (you know, beat up the badie but never do any lasting damage) i was very wrong. I was under this impression because i am an ignorant person that had not heard of Watchmen until one of my friends told me about it......

Because this friend is of the opposite gender to me and came to see the movie with me the 2min long sex scene was just a weeee bit uncomfortable..... Other than that the only other bits that bothered me was the bit were the police man tried to arrest them after they beat up all the rioting prisoners (that seems like such an illogical thing to do) and the end, for some reason i didn't think that it had the same feel to it as the rest of the movie....

Now that i think about it the gore was my favorite part, despite the fact that the guy with the changing mask (sorry, im really hopeless with names) was one of my favorite characters when Manhattan killed him i couldn't help my self from trying to see an image in the way his blood fell.....

Well, that only makes me sound a little psychopathic.......

Jack Squat
2009-03-08, 08:37 AM
Ride of the Valkyries was sort of... hilarious.... I cracked up at that part.

Yeah...of course that may be because I was picturing Manhattan and Comedian in Apocalypse Now.

That reminds me; I've got to get that song as my ringtone.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. I haven't read the graphic novel, but I was able to follow along. The gore was a bit much, but I think Rambo was worse. The sex scene bugged me a little, but in more of the way of "how'd that get past the censors" than "oh God, my eyes!". Between this movie, Rambo, and Underworld Evolution, I'm wondering if the MPAA sleeps through the movies now.

I'll be buying it when it comes out, but I'm not sure there's many people I can recommend it to...most people I know tend to be a bit squeamish.

Kris on a Stick
2009-03-08, 08:48 AM
Out of curiosity, where are you from KidKris?

Thailand. I don't really want to go into the politics of the thing, but it's pretty censor heavy. Cigarettes, alcohol and guns (pointed at people) are all fogged out on TV. This is the first I've seen it in the cinema though.

The Neoclassic
2009-03-08, 08:53 AM
Between this movie, Rambo, and Underworld Evolution, I'm wondering if the MPAA sleeps through the movies now.

Nah, they're just too distracted byworrying about people smoking and cussing in movies. :smalltongue:


I'll be buying it when it comes out, but I'm not sure there's many people I can recommend it to...most people I know tend to be a bit squeamish.

I consider myself rather squeamish but the movie didn't bother me much. This may be because my gore tolerance has quietly steadily increased as I watch more movies in college (I was oh-so-sheltered from violent movies before college), but I think a lot of it is also that I'm fine with just closing my eyes when it looks like there's going to be too much gore. If you know people who'd like the plot, point, and awesomeness of the movie, don't let their squeamishness hold you back from at least recommending it; just also warn them that there's some fairly graphic violence, and they can decide for themselves. :smallsmile:

Grynning
2009-03-08, 09:28 AM
The gore was a bit much, but I think Rambo was worse. The sex scene bugged me a little, but in more of the way of "how'd that get past the censors" than "oh God, my eyes!". Between this movie, Rambo, and Underworld Evolution, I'm wondering if the MPAA sleeps through the movies now.

I think it's a sad reflection on society that overall, it seems people are more up in arms about one fairly tame sex scene and a few shots of CGI man-parts than the horrendous violence. I don't approve of censorship in any form, but seriously, why is everyone so upset about a little bit of nudity? It's probably the least offensive thing about Watchmen I can think of.

I understand the people who are complaining about the sex scene being kind of cheesy and lame, because it was, but I just had a little chuckle when I was watching it and thought that Alan Moore would probably approve. He is an accomplished pervert and loves writing pornography (I am not making this up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Girls)), and many of the sex scenes in his comics are pretty cheesy and lame, albeit intentionally so.

Foeofthelance
2009-03-08, 10:06 AM
I've seen the movie twice now, since my brother wanted to go the midnight showing and my girlfriend wanted to see it on Saturday. Having already seen the plot on screen (and most of the important bits non-spoilered on various comic threads and Tvtropes) that I started picking up some of the background details and jokes I missed the first time through.

For all those complaining about the lack of squid involvement at the end, I refer you back to the scene where Laurie is yelling at John about his clones and work and relationships. When it cuts to Ozy and his scientists in Antartica, there is a sign over their head, which read...


S (something)
Q (something else)
U (another something else)
I (yet an entirely new word)
D ( I think we get the joke now.)

And no, those aren't the exact words. It was the project name, as far as I could tell, but it went by too quick and I was laughing too hard to finish reading it.

Brine
2009-03-08, 10:07 AM
It bothered me that Dr. Manhattan was blinking all the time.

Rotipher
2009-03-08, 11:53 AM
Oh, and of course they censored the cleaver bit, but left the buzz-saw bit untouched, despite the fact that the cleaver->head fusion was already partially hidden by some shadows anyway, but the buzz saw bit was broad daylight, right in your face. :smallsigh:

Really? Sounds like a double standard: bad guys are supposed to do awful things to helpless people, but Rorschach was being presented as one of the film's heroes. Hacking into a captive must've seemed incompatible with his role as a protagonist, in the censors' view. (Night Owl bending that gang member's elbow backwards was even more gruesome, IMO, but that guy was actively attacking him and Laurie at the time.)

Hate to think what those same censors must've done to Tarantino's films... :smalltongue:

EvilDMMk3
2009-03-08, 12:07 PM
I walked past the cinema today. I heard the following:

"It was ok I guess but why didn't they just kill the blonde guy before he placed the bomb? And why rip off the Incredibles for that one sight gag?"

Nerd. Rage. Rising.

Rotipher
2009-03-08, 12:07 PM
[SIZE="1"]My one major annoyance was the very tacked on shots at the energy industry they threw in (basically just using Veidt as a mouthpiece to go "OIL COMPANIES ARE BAD!!!"). It especially didn't make sense to those of us who'd read the comic, because in the book Jon solved the energy issue years ago and the Cold War was still going strong.

And yet the planet was still running out of resources, which is why Adrian was so convinced that nuclear conflict was inevitable if he didn't intervene. This film didn't have time to delve into that backstory -- heck, it barely had time for the characters to breathe -- and it wouldn't have made much sense for Russia and the U.S. to be jockeying for influence in the Middle East (i.e. the Afghanistan face-off) if oil was no longer considered a strategic resource.

Actually, I liked the addition of the '80s industry giants (Iacocca!) in that scene ... not least, because it shows both Veidt's moral hypocrisy, and his genius-grade ability to multitask. He knew exactly when that hit man was going to appear, and he'd led those guys directly into the crossfire. If he's going to kill millions, he might as well make sure he's eliminating some business rivals and robber barons in the bargain.

Seraph
2009-03-08, 12:09 PM
In the second circumstance, it had seemed like Ozy had just vaporized and killed Jon, not to mention all the people in New York, which severely upset her. Kind of easier to pull the trigger on someone responsible for such atrocities.

Remember here, Rorschach is considered to be dangerously psychotic because of his willingness to kill any criminal he comes across. He's considered creepy and insane by Laurie. and then two scenes later, she's turning a guy's head 180 degrees and using people as meat shields for bullets.


well, there's a difference. Rorschach kills liquor store robbers and drops people down elevator shafts for annoying him, whereas Dan and Laurie were using lethal force to defend themselves against vastly superior numbers where trying to fight non-lethally was simply not practical. Say what you will about squeamishness, but if the opportunity presents itself I doubt anyone would object to using the body of someone trying to kill you as a shield against bullets.

AlisdairM
2009-03-08, 01:19 PM
As an Englishman-in-New-York for the day (over on a business trip) I made a point of seeing this movie as close to Times Square as possible. Where ccertain scenes are listed as being on 7th/43rd, I was just one block over :¬)

As for the movie, I'm giving it a solid 7/10. I went in nervous that the comic was unfilmable, and that usually pushed me either to 'see I was right' or blown away with 'Wow! they did it and how!'. I was not blown away, but do remain impressed.

The main failing is that it tries too hard to stay close to the book. Retaining a number of 'minor' characters for essentially cameos may appeal to purists with a checklist, but none of them really get the screen time to serve their purpose - the emotional attachment we get with those characters as events unfold around them. I think picking just one of those characters and doing the usual compress-several-roles-into-one trick could have bought enough screen time to pay off better. This is probably my main criticism though, so overall a thumbs up.

Visually the film is stunning. In one way I'm reminded of the Judge Dredd movie where the ABC warrior stole the show (only good thing about that movie!) and when Archie first appeared I was just as blown away. The difference is the whole movie is like that - it looks fantastic, characters and all.

The only character that really did not work out for me (and I think this is a common complaint) was Adrian. He does not look the part, he does not fill the role, and some important charisma is simply lacking.

Importantly, there are a couple of scenes that worked better for me in the movie than the comic book. Visual story-telling is different between the two media (pacing is much more controlled on screen) and occasionally that timing paid off very well.

Finally, I'm not happy with the ending - but I'm happy it worked out well for so many here. I'm not tied too strongly to the form presented in the book, but think a stronger external threat is needed than the one presented here. The other characters reactions to this work quite well though, especially the big blue man. That alone almost buys me in.

Loved Rorshach's final scene, it really pays off the movie for me.

I will definitely be buying this on DVD, and will be high on my BluRay list if I ever go HD. It is great to look at, but will never replace the comic book for retelling the story itself.

Looking forward to the Tales of the Black Freighter DVD too...

AlisdairM
2009-03-08, 01:28 PM
Other than that the only other bits that bothered me was the bit were the police man tried to arrest them after they beat up all the rioting prisoners (that seems like such an illogical thing to do)

Remember that the Keene act made costumed vigilantism illegal. That is why arresting Rorshach is a big deal (bigger than yet-another-gun-murder in NY).

Also, if you are in the middle of a riot and spot people who clearly have no business being there performing illegal activities (beating people up is a crime, even if they are 'bad guys') what else should you do?

For all he knows, they could be responsible for the riot, perhaps as a cover for some crazy irresponsible scheme like a jailbreak for another prisoner...

Made perfect sense to me, unfortunately for the guy concerned!

The Linker
2009-03-08, 01:45 PM
I think you have some first name confusion happenin. Jon = Dr. Manhattan. Nite Owl's name is Dan. Ozy had just trapped Jon in the chamber with Bubastis and discorporated him when she tried to shoot him (I'm still fuzzy on where she got the gun in the movie. IIRC in the comic someone has it there, but my friend has my copy ATM.)

Er--

I, uh--

>_>;;

I was testing you. And... everyone else.

...y-you pass! :smallbiggrin:;;

I TOTALLY blame 3:02am for this.


I think it's a sad reflection on society that overall, it seems people are more up in arms about one fairly tame sex scene and a few shots of CGI man-parts than the horrendous violence. I don't approve of censorship in any form, but seriously, why is everyone so upset about a little bit of nudity? It's probably the least offensive thing about Watchmen I can think of.

Yeah, but some of us just can't help it. It just makes some people uncomfortable, like how a plethora of bugs crawling around you in real life may not bother some people, but my grandmother, well... and naturally, if something makes us uncomfortable, our first instinct is to wish it wasn't there.

For a lot of us, particularily those watching with friends (of the opposite gender, even! :smalleek:) it was highly uncomfortable to sit there through two minutes of up-and-down-and-up-and-down. :smalltongue: For my part, it'd be great if I WASN'T uncomfortable with it. But as it stands, I don't think that's going to go away -- unless maybe I had repeated exposure to watching sex scenes with friends and family to desensitive me to it, as with violence. Yeah, that sounds great. :smalltongue:


For all those complaining about the lack of squid involvement at the end, I refer you back to the scene where Laurie is yelling at John about his clones and work and relationships. When it cuts to Ozy and his scientists in Antartica, there is a sign over their head, which read...


S (something)
Q (something else)
U (another something else)
I (yet an entirely new word)
D ( I think we get the joke now.)

And no, those aren't the exact words. It was the project name, as far as I could tell, but it went by too quick and I was laughing too hard to finish reading it.


That reminds me -- I also caught a 300 reference in there. Near the end of the moive, when the psychiatrist, Malcolm Long, is outside in New York just before the mass vaporization, his briefcase opens and his blot tests spill out. Just as his briefcase opens, you can see the code on one of the latches -- 300. :smallbiggrin:

Nevrmore
2009-03-08, 02:40 PM
I walked past the cinema today. I heard the following:

"It was ok I guess but why didn't they just kill the blonde guy before he placed the bomb? And why rip off the Incredibles for that one sight gag?"

Nerd. Rage. Rising.
Putting aside for a moment the complete retardation inherent in that statement, what "sight gag" is s/he even talking about?

well, there's a difference. Rorschach kills liquor store robbers and drops people down elevator shafts for annoying him, whereas Dan and Laurie were using lethal force to defend themselves against vastly superior numbers where trying to fight non-lethally was simply not practical. Say what you will about squeamishness, but if the opportunity presents itself I doubt anyone would object to using the body of someone trying to kill you as a shield against bullets.
Non-lethal force IS practical. An incapacitated foe is just as much of a threat as a dead one.

Look, I understand what Snyder was going for. He was doing a "Well in the REAL world, fighting crime is going to be violent, bloody, and gross, not like how it's portrayed in comic books" thing, and I can respect that. But no two ways you turn it can ever make Laurie, a hero, instantly killing a man by plunging a knife into his collarbone, necessary or right. I'm sorry, it just can't happen.

Ascension
2009-03-08, 02:48 PM
Remember that the Keene act made costumed vigilantism illegal. That is why arresting Rorshach is a big deal (bigger than yet-another-gun-murder in NY).

It doesn't explain, though (the comic may, but it's been over a year since I've read it), how Rorschach managed to be processed through the judicial system and into prison so quickly.


That reminds me -- I also caught a 300 reference in there. Near the end of the moive, when the psychiatrist, Malcolm Long, is outside in New York just before the mass vaporization, his briefcase opens and his blot tests spill out. Just as his briefcase opens, you can see the code on one of the latches -- 300. :smallbiggrin:

I didn't see it, but according to my father the 1 falls off of the door to the Comedian's apartment (3001) as Ozy is entering, leaving the door simply labeled 300 for a moment.

Nevrmore
2009-03-08, 02:52 PM
It doesn't explain, though (the comic may, but it's been over a year since I've read it), how Rorschach managed to be processed through the judicial system and into prison so quickly.
No, he's tossed in jail just as quickyl in the comic. Considering how good of detectives Bourquin and Fine are ("Let's just let [the murder of Blake] drop outta sight.") it's possible that in this universe, the legal system is pretty much crumbling around the nation's ears (considering how easily Big Figure has it in the pen, this might be true), which might be an explanation for why Rorschach was put in jail before his trial. Though that's all just speculation and maybe it happened simply to make for a better story.

shaxberd
2009-03-08, 02:56 PM
Putting aside for a moment the complete retardation inherent in that statement, what "sight gag" is s/he even talking about?

Non-lethal force IS practical. An incapacitated foe is just as much of a threat as a dead one.

Look, I understand what Snyder was going for. He was doing a "Well in the REAL world, fighting crime is going to be violent, bloody, and gross, not like how it's portrayed in comic books" thing, and I can respect that. But no two ways you turn it can ever make Laurie, a hero, instantly killing a man by plunging a knife into his collarbone, necessary or right. I'm sorry, it just can't happen.

Not that I'm condoning this, but both Dan and Laurie were much less violent in costume than out of costume. The prison scene was decidedly less violent than the mugging attempt scene in the alley. I would ascribe this to limits they impose upon themselves when they're interfering in other people's business (helping) and when they're defending themselves, the difference between shooting a man in the street and shooting him when he breaks into your house.

Also, it's probably safe to say they were trying to impress one another somewhat and being particularly reckless.

BRC
2009-03-08, 03:08 PM
I could also see Rorschach pleading Guilty right away. He's smart enough to know they won't find him innocent, and he's not going to lie about what he's done. He's proud of the way he's lived his life.

Nevrmore
2009-03-08, 03:16 PM
Not that I'm condoning this, but both Dan and Laurie were much less violent in costume than out of costume. The prison scene was decidedly less violent than the mugging attempt scene in the alley. I would ascribe this to limits they impose upon themselves when they're interfering in other people's business (helping) and when they're defending themselves, the difference between shooting a man in the street and shooting him when he breaks into your house.

Also, it's probably safe to say they were trying to impress one another somewhat and being particularly reckless.
I can see your point, but then that brings about the question of why the mood shift from the comic to the movie? In the comic, the mugging scene was intense and nervous, and afterwards Dan and Laurie, breathing heavily, turn away from each other and have to calm down (a not-so-subtle analogue to sex). In the movie, they look at each other, grin, and get to murderin'.


I could also see Rorschach pleading Guilty right away. He's smart enough to know they won't find him innocent, and he's not going to lie about what he's done. He's proud of the way he's lived his life.
It's noted in the comic, in his police report between chapters 5 and 6, that he pleads guilty to the murder of the kidnapper in '75 and the multiple rapist that he tacks "Never!" onto in '77, but innocent to Moloch's killing.

Trog
2009-03-08, 03:17 PM
Not that I'm condoning this, but both Dan and Laurie were much less violent in costume than out of costume. The prison scene was decidedly less violent than the mugging attempt scene in the alley. I would ascribe this to limits they impose upon themselves when they're interfering in other people's business (helping) and when they're defending themselves, the difference between shooting a man in the street and shooting him when he breaks into your house.

Also, it's probably safe to say they were trying to impress one another somewhat and being particularly reckless.

Could be. Could also be that they were both out of practice and were a little rusty on restraint. Could be that they both had a lot of pent up hostility that got vented a little too much. In the name of self defense I don't have much of an issue with breaking bones. Stabbing an attacker in a place that would obviously kill someone either instantly or within minutes is another matter. Though given the adrenaline that was no doubt pumping hard through Laurie's system I find it difficult to judge it in the same manner as doing so in a calculated way.

Rotipher
2009-03-08, 03:18 PM
Not that I'm condoning this, but both Dan and Laurie were much less violent in costume than out of costume. The prison scene was decidedly less violent than the mugging attempt scene in the alley. I would ascribe this to limits they impose upon themselves when they're interfering in other people's business (helping) and when they're defending themselves, the difference between shooting a man in the street and shooting him when he breaks into your house.

Also, it's probably safe to say they were trying to impress one another somewhat and being particularly reckless.

Not to mention that the film didn't offer many other opportunities to drop hints about Laurie's parentage. Aside from proving that Silk Spectre II (unlike her Mom) isn't just playing superhero to show off her curves, having her fight like a tornado shows she's got more of the Comedian in her that she realizes. It kind of replaces her graphic-novel comment about putting on some armor and packing a gun.

Thufir
2009-03-08, 04:19 PM
Saw it this afternoon.

I like it.

Remarkably faithful to the original. Most changes were understandable (Majority just contracting things), and those I didn't see any particular point in weren't worse, just different.
Sex scenes were bad. Some music choices questionable.

One thing really annoyed me. Single line.
Rorschach: "Saw Dreiberg and Jupiter leave diner. They didn't know me without my mask."
Should say face.

Kris on a Stick
2009-03-09, 03:35 AM
One thing really annoyed me. Single line.
Rorschach: "Saw Dreiberg and Jupiter leave diner. They didn't know me without my mask."
Should say face.

That one bugged me too.


Really? Sounds like a double standard: bad guys are supposed to do awful things to helpless people, but Rorschach was being presented as one of the film's heroes. Hacking into a captive must've seemed incompatible with his role as a protagonist, in the censors' view. (Night Owl bending that gang member's elbow backwards was even more gruesome, IMO, but that guy was actively attacking him and Laurie at the time.)

Hate to think what those same censors must've done to Tarantino's films... :smalltongue:

To be fair, I don't think it was that, but that it was the head specifically that was wounded. I've noticed as a trend on TV that things like guns and knives are only censored if held to one's head, hostage style. Any other part of the body is fine, apparently. That doesn't excuse the poor quality of said censoring though. Blur or pixelation would have been fine, but this, this was insane. There were like, a dozen humongous vaguely pixel like squares covering the top of the dude's head. Censor FAIL.


Now, probably one of my favorite parts of the movie was the opening credits. Seriously. Best opening credits ever. What did it for me were the Nite-Owl Andy Warhol prints. The image of the Silk Specter painted on the side of the plane came close second.

Avilan the Grey
2009-03-09, 04:19 AM
On the whole, if you are a comic book fan, this is a film you need to see. It's probably not a film you will feel the need to see in it's entirety more than once, sadly.

Don't get me wrong - there are some really cool moments in the film, and the whole thing is just oozing with style - but the issue of pacing takes center stage in the transition from comic book to film.

As I stated in the other thread, I will not watch this, since I did not enjoy the comic / "graphic novel". I am very much a comic book fan, but I prefer different comics.
(Just pointing this out because I am also a Music fan, despite not liking experimental Jazz, etc)

I do think you are correct about the translation to this medium though, even though I have not watched this movie; but I think it applies to everything moving from one medium to another. Some Fans will be irritated at some points, and some Fan Dumbs will hate it forever and ever, because of it, but changes are absolutely needed.

Avilan the Grey
2009-03-09, 04:59 AM
You know, come to think of it, I probably wouldn't be nearly as floored by Watchmen if I'd seen the movie first. I remember being absolutely shell-shocked - I think the only conscious thought I registered was "Wow, am I glad I didn't grow up in the Cold War. Everyone was apparently bat**** insane. Alan Moore not least."


Well I remember the utter disbelief, relief and wonder when the countries broke loose from the Warsaw pact. I missed most of the cold war as I was born in 1972, and by the time I was aware of it it had progressed beyond the bat-s**t crazy stuff, no Cuba crisis, no Checkpoint Charlie almost-wars (most scary moment I recall was when the Soviet nuclear sub ran aground deep into Swedish territorial waters and we had a standoff with the Soviet Baltic fleet for a day or so before they decided not going in and just retrieving it). Mostly the media talked about Afghanistan, The Polish workers in the Solidarity Union and Ice hockey...

Om
2009-03-09, 06:33 AM
Now, probably one of my favorite parts of the movie was the opening credits. Seriously. Best opening credits ever. What did it for me were the Nite-Owl Andy Warhol prints. The image of the Silk Specter painted on the side of the plane came close second.Agreed. The film got a lot more interesting (with the exception of that dig at big oil) when Snyder wasn't faithfully reproducing the comic panel by panel

Kris on a Stick
2009-03-09, 06:53 AM
Say, did anyone else find it disturbing/funny that The Comedian had a giant portrait of Silk Spectre I on the wall?

Opal Tide
2009-03-09, 08:58 AM
Ha-ha. Yes, I also laugh at people's honest opinions that are completely diverse from mine for the sake of getting in a cheap shot without any form of an actual rebuttal.

I have yet to see the Watchmen...

And if you had seen Watchmen you would realize just how absurd on face that review actually was. The humor of the review was how clearly the reviewer came in with preconceived notions about hte film and the film's message. The reviewer completely missed the message of the film and instead inserted boiler plate rhetoric that is applied to all "liberal" Hollywood movies (leftist, liberal, humanist, atheist). The reviewer's preoccupation with the slights (mostly preceived) against religion and that being a major driving criticism behind the review all point to the ideological agenda of the reviwer and not an honest review of the movie.

I think all those actually saw the film will agree with me that the review is hilarious not because of the person's "honest opinion", but because how amazingly off the mark they were in accessing the major, important themes of the film (anti-americanism, liberalism (somehow), Rorschach's motivation). The very fact that they actually use the term hero in a straightforward, unambiguous way should tip you off that Watchmen went right overt their heads (especially when they apply it to Rorschach).

Now I could have listed these in my original post but that would have been a waste of space at the time and anyone who had actually seen the movie would have realized the sheer absurdity of the review without further comment needed by me.

But by all means, feel free to to take cheapshots without being fully informed about the subject matter.

EvilDMMk3
2009-03-09, 09:37 AM
Agreed. The film got a lot more interesting (with the exception of that dig at big oil) when Snyder wasn't faithfully reproducing the comic panel by panelDig at big oil?

What dig at big oil?

People have been looking for alternatives to fossil fuels on the idea that we may be about to run out since the early 70s. Serious people with lost of money.

And the "rather socialist" line is dangerously close to being a quote from a promient bussnessman (I forget who) in 1989 about Cold Fusion.

Ozy is not pro-big busyness (at least not in the money making by any method way, see his refusal to make the undoubtedly potentially lucrative Nite Owl and Rorchach toys) in the graphic novel and if then men who met him had been anything but aggressive and he anything but disdainful then it would hav been a break of character.

Cristo Meyers
2009-03-09, 10:18 AM
Saw it Friday, enjoyed it, but not as much as I'd hoped.

The early pacing seemed off. There were points in the first half where I was honestly getting a tad bored. The over-arching plot of "who's killing masks?" almost got lost in all the backstory and flashback.

I won't say much about the effect of the big reveal, since it had been known to me for years now. So saying that it felt washed out wouldn't really be fair.

I enjoyed the fight scenes, some of the music (I'm with EvilDM, Alleluia is ruined forever...), the sex scenes felt gratuitous. Some of the lines were dead on delivery, most notably the famous 35 minutes ago.

Honestly, I think that if I'd read the graphic novel first, I might have very much disliked this film. Overall, I think I'm going to pass on the DVD and just grab the novel.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-03-09, 10:20 AM
I think all those actually saw the film will agree with me that the review is hilarious not because of the person's "honest opinion", but because

Actually, I thought the review was hilarious because it sounded exactly like they'd had Rorschach review the film.

When I just read the quote in this thread, I thought it was an inside joke review, but then I clicked the link and saw the site (familiar with it from, I think, Something Awful)...

mcv
2009-03-09, 10:58 AM
I've never read the comics (though I did hear they were great, and they've been somewhere on my list of things to read someday if I ever get around to it for nearly 20 years), and saw the movie last sunday morning (of all time) in IMAX.

It was big, spectacular and beautiful, but not something that needs to be on IMAX. It was just really, really big, which is nice.


The casting of Ozzy was horrible. Really, really horrible. I didn't believe what he said, I didn't see any passion, and he just...didn't come across as the amazing pinnacle of humanity that he does in the comic.
Should Ozzy have been the pinnacle of humanity? When he was introduced, I thought: I should like this guy; he's talking about all sorts of really good things, but he's a creep! He comes across as a slick, creepy guy I wouldn't buy a second hand car from. And he's a megalomaniac.

Rorschach and the Comedian were awesome. Rorschach in prison was pure win. Comedian is a bastard and a crook with no sense of morality who indulges in violence just because he enjoys it, yet comes across as likable and jovial, and you can see how a crook like that can end up in a team of superheroes. But if he'd hung out with different people, he could just as easily have been a supervillain's main henchman. Very, very well done.

Dr. Manhattan is every bit as iconic as Rorschach, and very believably detached. The others, when in their suits, seemed a bit like generic superheroes. They're Fantastic Four rather than Spiderman or The Hulk. But I assume that was intentional.

What I found oddly amusing was that the world was basically supposed to be saved by a psychopath (Rorschach), a guy with no sense of morality (Comedian), a megalomaniac who sees himself as saviour of the world (Ozmandias), and someone who's almost completely detached from humanity (Dr Manhattan).

So it falls to the only sane humans (Nite Owl and Silk Spectre) to unite the others and save the world anyway. This works very well. They're a bit boring, and when you see Nite Owl without his costume, you wonder "is this guy a superhero?" He looks like he used to be an insecure geek, and failed to grow out of it. That makes him easy to identify with, however, and a confortable handhold in this world of gods and psychos.


Pacing: I feel as if they couldn't decide if this was an action movie, or a large character driven epic. The pacing was just...off. It had a tough time building up to anything.
I disagree. Pacing was absolutely perfect (while I hated the pacing in the LotR movies). Well, most of the movie did consist of neverending flashbacks to introduce the main characters (I hesitate to call them heroes), and after a while I wondered if there was going to be anything else in the film. It's amazing how much stuff you can crap in 180 minutes if you do it right.


Emotional payoff: None. Every time I read the book, I'm blown away by the end revelation. This one just felt...dull. You didn't hear the triumph in Adrian's voice, you didn't get the "Wooo! Saved the world!" feeling that you get in the comic book (graphic novel), it just kindof...happens.
Here I agree. The end, though a spectacular revelation, also felt a bit anticlimactic. It was: "Right, you killed 15 million people. We should kill you and tell the world, but if we do that, we'll have World War 3, so I guess we'll just have to accept it." At the same time, it was refreshing to have a superhero movie not end in an unmitigated win. They're forced to accept evil, because fighting it will just cause more evil.

Ofcourse Rorschach can't, and at the end he practically demands to be killed, because he will tell the world if he isn't.


Overall, I actually think it might have suffered for sticking too close to the graphic novel. While you can meander around and take your time over a year-long comic book series, when you do that in a movie it really slows things down, even if the information you're giving is interesting (the comedian's funeral took FOREVER, even though I really liked each scene individually.
I disagree. You can't have non-stop high speed action all the time. That was my big problem with Lord of the Rings. Taking time for a funeral is perfectly fine to me. It gives you time to breathe again.


The ending was...ok. I have a bit of trouble buying that the rest of the world is going to simply say "Oh United States, it's not your fault that your superman went crazy and killed millions, let's all work together to keep him from doing it again!" . They'd be @#$#@% off.
But also too terrified to use unclear weapons. In a way, Ozmandias does present Dr Manhattan as a new god who lays down the rules of conduct for the world.


I mean, when I first saw it in the movie I was ok with it, but the more I think about it, the more I have to say "...eh...that wouldn't have worked." I'd actually prefer it if he had summoned a Kraken like in the novel (Yes, I'm fully aware it wasn't a Kraken)
Ah, now I get the Cthulhu reference that a friend (who didn't see the movie but did read the comic) made. I have no idea how it worked out in the comic, but it seemed to work fine in the film. Dr Manhattan takes the blame (a bit like The Dark Knight, in fact), and the world will definitely fear him. Untill they forget about him, as will inevitable happen to new gods.

But mostly, Rorschach is just awesome. The only thing more awesome than Rorschach is Rorschach in prison. Another interesting point was to see an American movie featuring non-sexual nudity this casually. Never thought I'd see that day.


Heh, wasn't seeing in Black and White the whole point of Rorschach?
I was, and at the end, he seemed to understand how limiting that was. But he was also aware that he wouldn't be able to let go of that, and accepted the necessity of his death as a result.

Also, the music was absolutely brilliant. The best music of the last 40 years, and it worked perfectly every time. For me, at least.

Eldan
2009-03-09, 11:08 AM
Funny thing: I didn't see many reviews around here, but the cinema program lists the movie. Now for the interesting part, there's one line:

Genre: Action/Drama/Fantasy/Romance/Science fiction/Thriller


Seems like they just couldn't decide. :smallbiggrin:

WalkingTarget
2009-03-09, 11:27 AM
Saw it on Friday and have been mulling it over since then. Much like the Lord of the Rings movies, I was impressed with the film visually, but lament both the loss of much of the complexity present in the original and the changes made for expediency's sake. For those reasons, I think that the answer to the OP's question is that Moore was right and they failed to bring Watchmen to the screen, but what is there is still an enjoyable film.

Stuff I liked:

Opening credits montage - pretty much a bonus for people already familiar with the comic, but it was a fun sequence anyway.
Jackie Earle Haley's performance - in the opening scenes I couldn't help but grin when I heard that "hurm". He isn't quite the Rorschach from the comic, but that's a problem more from the script/direction point of view (he's less blatantly crazy here and it's easier to like him), the acting was outstanding.
Jeffrey Dean Morgan's performance - not as memorable as Rorschach, but The Comedian was also solid.
The visual style in general - while some specifics were off for me, overall I think it worked.


Dislikes:

More than Badass Normal - the fight scenes were fun to watch, but they were up there in "normal" comic book mode. Too many characters being casually thrown across the room. Somebody else mentioned it, but the bullet-catching seemed less amazing here given what we'd been shown the characters doing through the whole film.
Simplification - another meta-critique, but it's the main thing that bugs me even if it's a direct result of condensing a 400-page graphic novel to a movie under 3 hours long. From not-quite-as-crazy Rorschach, to the lack of subtlety with Laurie's discovery of her parentage (it's due to Doc's interference, not just her own realization), to the not-a-squid ending (however well done the new ending is) things just get left out or dumbed down, not because the audience couldn't get it, but because there's simply not time. However, my biggest problem with this is...
Ozymandias - Coldly intellectual? Check. Ruthless? Check. Generating that Golden Boy image that the comic version had? Not so much. The twist is supposed to be a subversion in that if you just look at all of the characters, he'd be the one you'd trust - the shining example of human potential. The movie version didn't generate that for me at all.


Nitpicks:

Hallelujah - I know Leonard Cohen wrote it, but I just plain don't like his version. It's placement in that scene seemed more out-of-place to me than anything.
Minor details that make less sense given changes made for the film - Bubastis being there despite no need to explain genetic engineering, Hollis Mason's sign saying that "obsolete" models were a specialty when electric cars aren't around yet to warrant that particular word, the "cook" line even though they changed the torch to a saw, etc. Keeping stuff in because it was in the comic is all well and good, but it still needs to make sense after you change things (see where they moved Rorschach's line about when he was killing the dogs to when he killed the guy, it still made sense after the change).
No "I did it!" and not asking Doc if he'd done the right thing - This goes back up to the simplification problem I already mentioned.


I could go on, but it'd seem more and more like I didn't enjoy the film. I did, but in the same general way I've liked other adaptations.

Cristo Meyers
2009-03-09, 11:52 AM
Ozymandias - Coldly intellectual? Check. Ruthless? Check. Generating that Golden Boy image that the comic version had? Not so much. The twist is supposed to be a subversion in that if you just look at all of the characters, he'd be the one you'd trust - the shining example of human potential. The movie version didn't generate that for me at all.

It was honestly so bad for me and my wife that, even if I didn't already know, I would've taken one look at the character and known he was the bad guy.




Minor details that make less sense given changes made for the film - Bubastis being there despite no need to explain genetic engineering

Well...there was the background line when Dan and Laurie are having dinner about "I'm so glad I ordered the four-legged chicken"...:smalltongue:

Piedmon_Sama
2009-03-09, 12:32 PM
I, for one, am not ashamed to admit I wept manly tears when Rorschach got vaped.

Overall the film, while not perfect, did about as good a job as I think anyone could trying to cram Watchmen into a reasonably-sized movie. The only music choice that really grated on me was Simon & Garfunkel at the Comedian's funeral---I thought it called for some big, patriotic, Crimson Tide-style brass band music, to play up the irony of what the Comedian really was, but that's my interpretation vs Zach Snyder's.

BRC
2009-03-09, 12:35 PM
One thing that I find interesting, not necessarily good or bad. In the book, it's hinted that Blake killed JFK ("Just don't ask me where I was when JFK got shot"), and it sounds like he's joking. In the movie, they do everything short of actually showing him shooting. They show JFK getting shot, then they pan over to Blake putting a rifle away.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-03-09, 12:45 PM
In all fairness, there was actually some promotional art released prior to the original series that shows the Comedian, rifle in hand, at the scene of Dallas, 1963.

Rotipher
2009-03-09, 02:01 PM
Say, did anyone else find it disturbing/funny that The Comedian had a giant portrait of Silk Spectre I on the wall?


There was a nude woman's picture on his wall in the comic, but I don't think it was Sally (straight hair not curly).

Rotipher
2009-03-09, 02:05 PM
Comedian is a bastard and a crook with no sense of morality who indulges in violence just because he enjoys it, yet comes across as likable and jovial, and you can see how a crook like that can end up in a team of superheroes. But if he'd hung out with different people, he could just as easily have been a supervillain's main henchman.


Given that little opening-credits flashback to Dallas, plus the fact that Nixon remains in office for at least five terms, plus certain other oblique hints in the comic, I'd say that the Comedian did become a supervillain's main henchman. :smalleek:

Rotipher
2009-03-09, 02:13 PM
Minor details that make less sense given changes made for the film - Bubastis being there despite no need to explain genetic engineering, Hollis Mason's sign saying that "obsolete" models were a specialty when electric cars aren't around yet to warrant that particular word, the "cook" line even though they changed the torch to a saw, etc.


I agree that Bubastis's appearance should've been explained, if only with a quickie insert (e.g. a TV ad for genetically-engineered pets showing in the background of a bar scene). But Hollis's sign could've referred to ordinary vintage cars from the 30s and 40s, and the "cook" line could indicate that the speaker is recalling the recent hot-fat-in-the-face incident.

WalkingTarget
2009-03-09, 02:45 PM
I agree that Bubastis's appearance should've been explained, if only with a quickie insert (e.g. a TV ad for genetically-engineered pets showing in the background of a bar scene). But Hollis's sign could've referred to ordinary vintage cars from the 30s and 40s, and the "cook" line could indicate that the speaker is recalling the recent hot-fat-in-the-face incident.

Note I said "less sense" not "no sense". :smalltongue:

T-O-E
2009-03-09, 03:45 PM
Just saw it.
I know it sounds weird but it kinda hasn't sunk in yet.

Rorschach was perfectly cast. As was Manhatten.

I was worried that
Bernard wasn't going to hug Bernie at the end. Very poignant scene for me and I'm glad that it was kept in.

mcv
2009-03-09, 04:50 PM
Nitpicks:

Hallelujah - I know Leonard Cohen wrote it, but I just plain don't like his version. It's placement in that scene seemed more out-of-place to me than anything.

I don't understand why this song is such a problem for everybody. Can someone explain? I thought it was a good song for that scene. (Forget which scene it was, but I remember the song, and liking it.)

Personally I think the music was perfect in every possible way, so I'm surprised to see so many people complain about this particular song.

Nevrmore
2009-03-09, 05:04 PM
One thing that I find interesting, not necessarily good or bad. In the book, it's hinted that Blake killed JFK ("Just don't ask me where I was when JFK got shot"), and it sounds like he's joking. In the movie, they do everything short of actually showing him shooting. They show JFK getting shot, then they pan over to Blake putting a rifle away.
He actually says "Just don't ask me where I was with Woodward and Bernstein!" in a conversation about JFK. Ozymandias hints at his role in the murder when he informs Dan and Rorschach about how Nixon and The Comedian, acting as his guard, were in Dallas the day of the assassination, and no one knows why.

Thufir
2009-03-09, 06:26 PM
Nitpicks:

Hallelujah - I know Leonard Cohen wrote it, but I just plain don't like his version. It's placement in that scene seemed more out-of-place to me than anything.

I like the Leonard Cohen version, but its use in that scene... I think when I get the DVD I'll just look away from the screen at that point, just listen to the music instead.
On the subject of music, I was also bothered by the song they had over the owlship flying to Antarctica - much too upbeat for that. Only way it would make sense would be if it was music Dan was playing in the ship.


No "I did it!" and not asking Doc if he'd done the right thing - This goes back up to the simplification problem I already mentioned.


That did bother me, particularly the lack of the conversation with Jon. Putting his words into Laurie's mouth just doesn't have the same impact.
Although they did have the "Without condoning or condemning, I understand." which was good.

The Linker
2009-03-09, 06:27 PM
He actually says "Just don't ask me where I was with Woodward and Bernstein!" in a conversation about JFK.

That doesn't sound right. I have the book in front of me -- here, I'll transcript the entire conversation, in Laurie's flashback. Several people are gathered around Eddie Blake...


Partygoer #1: See those post reporters they found in that garage? Woodward and what's his name? Jewish name...

Partygoer #2: Bernstein. Yeah, I understand the underground papers are already yelling conspiracy.

Partygoer #3: Well, Eddie? Any opinions?

Eddie Blake: That piece in the Berkely Barb? Well, I guess you smoke enough weed you can imagine almost anything. / Nah... I'm clean, guys. Just don't ask where I was when I heard about J.F.K.


The rest is irrelevant -- one of the partygoers says that Eddie doesn't give people the creeps like 'goddamn Spock over there,' and then Laurie comes over. But anyway, take from that what you will. I always thought it meant he was smoking weed when he heard about J.F.K.'s assassination. :smalltongue:

That slash is supposed to represent the second word bubble, if it wasn't obvious.

Opal Tide
2009-03-09, 06:30 PM
Somewhat off topic but while checking out Topless Robot's review of Watchmen, he put up a link to these two cool fake Watchmen film posters that were created in the genre of Film Noir:

Silk Spectre II (http://ninjaink.deviantart.com/art/Silk-Spectre-Noir-101718989)

Rorschach (http://ninjaink.deviantart.com/art/Rorschach-Film-Noir-101677796)

Pretty cool stuff!

WalkingTarget
2009-03-09, 06:41 PM
I don't understand why this song is such a problem for everybody. Can someone explain? I thought it was a good song for that scene. (Forget which scene it was, but I remember the song, and liking it.)

Personally I think the music was perfect in every possible way, so I'm surprised to see so many people complain about this particular song.

Well, first off, this was the first time I'd actually heard the original version of the song (I'm more familiar with John Cale's and Rufus Wainwright's covers) and I didn't care for it in general. This is independent of it's placement for me (during the Silk Spectre/Nite Owl sex scene).

Now, those versions would have been outright wrong for the scene, but given that I kept thinking of them it caused some mental dissonance during the scene. I have a feeling that most people that say that the scene ruined the song in general for them had something similar happen in reverse (now they'll think of that scene when hearing any version of the song).

EvilDMMk3
2009-03-09, 06:43 PM
Rorschach (http://ninjaink.deviantart.com/art/Rorschach-Film-Noir-101677796)What will the inkblot see in you?:smallamused:

Yulian
2009-03-09, 07:08 PM
But mostly, Rorschach is just awesome. The only thing more awesome than Rorschach is Rorschach in prison. Another interesting point was to see an American movie featuring non-sexual nudity this casually. Never thought I'd see that day.<<snip>>

Also, the music was absolutely brilliant. The best music of the last 40 years, and it worked perfectly every time. For me, at least.

Holy, heroic, swinging man-meat, Batman!

Okay, that little bit of immaturity out of the way, I thought it was indeed, about damn time Americans got over that.

I also have to agree about the music. The score itself was breathtaking. I'll definitely be buying it (I collect movie scores), the music when Jon first reformed was awe-inspiring. But the song choices? They caught the mood perfectly. Come on, "All Along the Watchtower" while Dan and Rorschach flew to Antarctica? Brilliant!

I caught it in IMAX, and I have to say, minor quibbles aside, this was a very, very solid and enjoyable movie. I heard the audience in the theatre I was in gasp, chuckle, and grimace at all the right parts (mostly in response to Rorschach's actions). I thought Dan came across as very sympathetic, a man hiding behind a mask when he was really just letting himself out when he wore it, as opposed to Rorschach, who literally is far more his "face" than he ever was anything else.

Comedian was great, you found yourself finding him charismatic almost against your will, even knowing what a terrible person he was. Laurie actually came across as more competent, dangerous, and stronger than a female action lead has in quite some time. I had no problem believing that when she hit someone, she wrecked them. Jon was appropriately aloof, yet gentle, and trying so hard to understand what had slipped away from him long ago.

Ozy...well...can't have a perfect film, can we? He didn't come off as bright, shining, charming, and benevolent. He was a bit of a strutting popinjay.

Overall, well-paced, especially considering its length, I think the story hung together well, despite all the cuts that had to be made, but I have a few quibbles.

I wish we could have had an extra 10 minutes with Dr. Long in the prison with Rorschach. It would have helped solidify Rorschach's view of the world and shown that some people avoided thinking about it. I wish we'd had the Kitty Genovese murder reference explaining the mask and why Walter first became Rorschach.

I also did miss the early bar scene where we establish why everyone was so terrified of Rorschach. But I can see why they cut it.

I am also unsure why they went to head-choppy as opposed to the fire-game. Not sure what point they were getting at there in terms of the difference.

Still, very good film. I think the "nature" of superhero films has been expanded again into more adult territory. I like it.

Oh and side-note: non CG moving Rorschach mask: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-ZlKhDI0wQ

I think they likely used some of this: http://www.paintwithpearl.com/chromics/blacktempchange/black_temperature_change_paint.htm

- Yulian

The Unborne
2009-03-09, 07:23 PM
I am also unsure why they went to head-choppy as opposed to the fire-game. Not sure what point they were getting at there in terms of the difference.


Personally I thought it was a nice decision on the director's part. They saved maybe a few minutes and showed Rorschach's view of criminals when he states that men go to prison, animals get killed.

A nice parallel I thought.

Turcano
2009-03-09, 07:28 PM
Ozymandias - Coldly intellectual? Check. Ruthless? Check. Generating that Golden Boy image that the comic version had? Not so much. The twist is supposed to be a subversion in that if you just look at all of the characters, he'd be the one you'd trust - the shining example of human potential. The movie version didn't generate that for me at all.

Honestly, a lot of that is in the costume design. The costume in the comic was a lot campier than in the movie -- although that's not to say there wasn't campiness in it, like the Schumacher-esque costume-nipples. (I can't believe that hasn't been brought up yet.)


It's amazing how much stuff you can crap in 180 minutes if you do it right.

I don't mean to make fun of you (but I have to do it anyway), but that's a typo, right?

mofabulous
2009-03-09, 07:31 PM
Great movie.

I never read the book so I went without the full backstory. It definately wasnt an average comic book hero movie. It was 3 hours so casual fans who like short movies might not enjoy it. I loved all the flashback stories detailing everyones lives before the main story.

I'd rate this as an epic movie right up there with dune and star wars. It would be a great movie to have sequels to, but I'm not familiar with the actual watchmen comic so that may not be possible.

Opal Tide
2009-03-09, 07:42 PM
Keep in mind folks that there is still a lot of footage we did not see that will be included in the DVD. I'm really psyched about that, especially if it improves the movie as much as LotR extended versions improved on the theatrical version.

Rutskarn
2009-03-09, 07:56 PM
I don't mean to make fun of you (but I have to do it anyway), but that's a typo, right?

Oh, I hope it isn't.

*grunts*

Ooh, look! Strawberry ice cream!

Nevrmore
2009-03-09, 08:00 PM
That doesn't sound right. I have the book in front of me -- here, I'll transcript the entire conversation, in Laurie's flashback. Several people are gathered around Eddie Blake...


Partygoer #1: See those post reporters they found in that garage? Woodward and what's his name? Jewish name...

Partygoer #2: Bernstein. Yeah, I understand the underground papers are already yelling conspiracy.

Partygoer #3: Well, Eddie? Any opinions?

Eddie Blake: That piece in the Berkely Barb? Well, I guess you smoke enough weed you can imagine almost anything. / Nah... I'm clean, guys. Just don't ask where I was when I heard about J.F.K.


The rest is irrelevant -- one of the partygoers says that Eddie doesn't give people the creeps like 'goddamn Spock over there,' and then Laurie comes over. But anyway, take from that what you will. I always thought it meant he was smoking weed when he heard about J.F.K.'s assassination. :smalltongue:

That slash is supposed to represent the second word bubble, if it wasn't obvious.
Huh. Guess my memory just sucks.

Seraph
2009-03-09, 09:34 PM
I just realized that they cut fridgeschach. that'd better be in the goddamn directors cut, it sums him up perfectly.

WitchSlayer
2009-03-09, 09:57 PM
Good movie, disliked the new ending.

kpenguin
2009-03-09, 10:50 PM
I just realized that they cut fridgeschach. that'd better be in the goddamn directors cut, it sums him up perfectly.

Yeah, during that scene I was thinking

Stuff him... stuff him...

Damn it, Moloch, you weak bastard.

Rotipher
2009-03-09, 11:21 PM
It would be a great movie to have sequels to, but I'm not familiar with the actual watchmen comic so that may not be possible.

Not possible, given that the comic was intentionally produced as a limited series, and that so few of the characters would still be around for any future adventures. Hypothetically, I suppose a prequal could be scripted about the heroes' past anti-crime campaigns -- watching the Minutemen battle Moloch or Nite Owl and Rorschach team up against the gangs could be cool -- but Alan Moore would almost certainly disown any such endeavor.

If you're looking for more backstory on the characters, a mock documentary on the Minutemen, based on Hollis Mason's book Under The Hood, will apparently be included in the March 24th DVD of Tales of the Black Freighter.

Tyrant
2009-03-09, 11:36 PM
but Alan Moore would almost certainly disown any such endeavor.
That's not saying much. He disowns every endeavor involving his work and hollywood. I understand the idea behind his stance (comics aren't movies and people shouldn't try to make them into movies due to differences in the mediums) but it can come off as elitist. I would think he would be happy because even if he doesn't personally like the movies (claims he doesn't watch them and just hates on them without actually watching them), they help more people gain exposure to his work and presumably more people start reading his work. Of course given the way this mind set sometimes works, that's probably a bad thing because it moves him that much closer to being "mainstream". So in other words, his disowning it is no big loss.

skywalker
2009-03-10, 12:16 AM
I watched the Watchmen. I haven't read the whole thread, apologies if I repeat something someone else has already said. Anyway:

I thought it was a good movie. It could've been better, but it seems Snyder is stuck on making a film that's a great homage to the movie (see 300) without making something great himself.

I thought the gore was a bit excessive. Particularly in the Rorschach part of the movie (head-cleaving, arm-cutting). Speaking of, I think the change from "here's a saw" to *cleavin' yer face!* was terrible. Yes, it was poetic that he did the same thing to the perp as he did to the dogs. However, the original had poetry as well, in that he found the girl's remains in the furnace. Plus, in the book, he specifically states that the moment he became Rorschach was listening to the man scream. No moment like that in the movie.

I think the showing of Jon's package at various moments and not at others was symbolic of whether or not he was letting the people around him see the real him.

I also thought Ozymandias was the weak link. Like others have said, he didn't make you like him. I remember when I read the book the first time, I was completely "WTFPWNT!" when they realize it's him. While my (and most posters') opinion is probably biased, my girlfriend, who never even so much as glanced at the book, indicated that Ozy seemed bad from the start.

When they went off-script at the end, you could tell. It was totally obvious that they were coming up with new dialogue and ideas. Totally egregious, and for the rest of the movie to be (sometimes faultily) faithful to the comic, that was a letdown. I always felt the ending was something the comic got the most right.

Finally, the music. I loved it. About "All Along the Watchtower" - the song that played while they were flying the Owlship to Antarctica - a quote from that song closed the chapter of the comic where they flew the Owlship to Antarctica. And the lyrics aren't so upbeat.

I was astounded by the sex-scene. I did not know you could put that into a movie with all that cursing and violence and still get an R rating. Somehow they pulled it off. I agree with those who say that any of the "better" versions of the song would've ruined that scene, and while I'm not too keen on Cohen's version, his is the one that fits the scene. One of the weirdest scenes, actually.

Nevrmore
2009-03-10, 12:38 AM
Plus, in the book, he specifically states that the moment he became Rorschach was listening to the man scream. No moment like that in the movie.
Not that I don't agree with what you're saying or anything, but as I recall (and I've already been wrong once in this thread, so don't take it to heart) is that Rorschach says something to the effect of, after he kills the German shepherds, "It was Kovacs who, muffled under mask, said 'Mother' and it was Kovacs who closed his eyes. It was Rorschach who opened them again."

good_lookin_gus
2009-03-10, 12:49 AM
It could have been worse. They probably couldn't have made it any better. Still, I'm here. I might as well nitpick.

I thought Dr. Manhatten was really cool. I had no complaints there.

I was only halfway satisfied w/ Rorschach. The actor portraying him gave a breakthrough performance. I definately felt something when he called Nite Owl a good friend after that little spat. He inserted a lot more anger into the character than I had interpretted. I didn't like it at first; but ultimately, it worked. My major problem was that Snyder seemed to have too much sympathy for the guy. Most of the scenes that show he's actually insane (instead of just effective because he's unscrupulous) had been cut short or cut out. Hell, were it not for every other character calling him a lunatic, you could've believed he was a really good crime fighter that just talked funny.

As someone already pointed out: Ozy was supposed to have been the last person you suspected. Would you have trusted that guy on the screen?

Nite Owl and SSII were hitting and missing (mostly missing). I actually thought the sex scene was a welcome relief from the sterile exchanges in the preceding scenes. Their dinner conversation at the beginning was pretty good, though.

Apart from the montage w/ Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah," the music score was overwhelming and out of place. At least they were all great songs.

The violence was silly, over the top, and unrealistic. They should have grabbed Chan-wook Park if they wanted to show the ugliness in a crimefighters line of work. I don't believe retired Masks should be able to solo 10+ armed assailents. Yes, Rorschach was adept at fighting and infiltration but he wasn't supposed to be a ninja. As I believe was pointed out already: This took all of the 'WTF?' out of Ozy catching the bullet.

The alternate ending would have worked better. Unfortunately, as someone on the first page noticed: They dug a giant plot hole when OUR superweapon killed millions in nations all over the globe. It should have stayed confined to the U.S.

The Linker
2009-03-10, 01:00 AM
However, the original had poetry as well, in that he found the girl's remains in the furnace. Plus, in the book, he specifically states that the moment he became Rorschach was listening to the man scream. No moment like that in the movie.

The way he discovered what had happened to the girl was, I think, exactly the same in both the movie and the book, except that the bone the dogs are fighting over in the movie has a shoe somehow still stuck on it, to make it a bit more obvious. (Personally, I didn't catch what exactly had happened to her in the book at first, so I welcome this change. :smalltongue:) And he states that he becomes Rorschach when cleaving the dogs.


Shock of impact ran along my arm. Jet of warmth spattered on chest, like hot faucet. / It was Kovacs who said "Mother" then, muffled under latex. It was Kovacs who closed his eyes.

It was Rorschach who opened them again.

I definitely agree that they should have had the "It was Kovacs who closed his eyes, Rorschach who opened them again," part in there, though. I'm not sure why they would take it out, when they had the 'shock of impact' and other lines there when he was cleaving the guy. It would have been so easy! Did I just miss it? :smalleek: :smallconfused:

I wonder if they took out the kerosene murder because... well, it's kind of a miracle he didn't get caught. Think about it. He very noticeably lights the house on fire, surely alerting the police and fire officials. But he stands there in the middle of the street, for an hour. I can just imagine the police showing up and wondering why one of the most elusive criminals in New York was standing there staring dreamingly into some flames. :smalltongue:

Finally, one line I missed from the movie:


Visited underworld bars and began hurting people. Put fourteen in hospital needlessly.

Fifteenth gave me an address.

:smallbiggrin:

mcv
2009-03-10, 03:23 AM
Well, first off, this was the first time I'd actually heard the original version of the song (I'm more familiar with John Cale's and Rufus Wainwright's covers) and I didn't care for it in general. This is independent of it's placement for me (during the Silk Spectre/Nite Owl sex scene).
I wasn't terribly familiar with any version of the song, but it did sound a lot lower than I remembered. Makes sense if it's by Leonard Cohen. I liked this version, though. Best Leonard Cohen song ever. I just listened to it on Youtube, and while the accompanying music is tacky (late '70s early '80s?), the singing is great. Very melancholy, sounds like it's about how imprefect love is or something, which seems very appropriate for both Silk Spectres.


Now, those versions would have been outright wrong for the scene, but given that I kept thinking of them it caused some mental dissonance during the scene. I have a feeling that most people that say that the scene ruined the song in general for them had something similar happen in reverse (now they'll think of that scene when hearing any version of the song).
So will I, probably, but I liked this version of the song, and didn't mind that scene.


I'd rate this as an epic movie right up there with dune and star wars. It would be a great movie to have sequels to, but I'm not familiar with the actual watchmen comic so that may not be possible.
As much as I'd love to see these characters again, I don't think there's much room for a sequel. Just see the movie again. And then the director's cut.


I don't mean to make fun of you (but I have to do it anyway), but that's a typo, right?
It was. Sorry. The keys are like, right next to each other.

Tom_Violence
2009-03-10, 06:51 AM
Was Alan Moore right, is this comic impossible to film?

He actually said that? I bet he feels pretty silly now, though I suspect he may have been joking, especially since the book basically reads like a storyboard from start to finish anyway. Impossible to film, my eye! Mayhaps he meant "impossible to film with mid-to-late-80s technology, in much the same way that certain plot twists would have been novel to mid-to-late-80s audiences but don't surprise the modern eye. That said, even I thought that the revelation that The Comedian was Laurie's father was a bit too heavy-handed in the film. The first flashback scene between her mum and her not-dad pretty much spells it out about 20 minutes into the film.

Anyway, I thought it was a rollicking good flick, and I realise that this is an eight-page thread and this has undoubtedly been said a million times before already, but I wasn't quite so keen on the new ending, mainly because I don't think it works as well. Doccy M is not only so vastly powerful as to be unbeatable (and I don't think it makes much sense to be 'united in the face of being doomed with bugger all that you can do about it'), but he's also a known quantity, which the aliens weren't. The Soviets and the Americans will only stop blowing each other to bits so long as they remember that Manhattan is around, which won't be very long given he's left the galaxy. The aliens, though, provided a much bigger realisation - namely that mankind is not alone in the galaxy, and there's nastiness out there somewhere, but you can't see it oh no, and its taken them this long to get here but who knows when they'll be back! Its the constant fear that any minute you may die if you don't all work together, versus the limited fear that the once nice guy went nasty for a bit but hasn't been seen since.
Still, I can understand why they cut it out, since it would've confused a lot of people and made a long-but-good film long-but-I'm-asleep-now.

Favourite moment:
Rorschach versus tiny man, especially the shots of the door swinging and opening.

Tiny niggle:
I was upset that Manhattan first appearance wasn't as a giant man, and I found the teleport effect slightly overdone - the way it was in the book oddly had more cinematic appeal to me.

PS: Thank god it wasn't Jeff Buckley! Is there anyone alive that hasn't heard that version enough yet?! I dread characters dying or leaving on TV shows, because I know exactly what music is coming next.

Jack_Banzai
2009-03-10, 07:01 AM
I thought it was a pretty good movie with a couple of lame moments (Jon on Mars at first didn't impress) and more than a couple of GREAT ones. My favorite shot of the movie: Comedian jumping from Nite Owl's airship, punching a few people, then firing his shotgun offscreen, grinning, while "I'm your boogie man, I'm your boogie man... turn me on" is blaring. Classic.

Thufir
2009-03-10, 07:35 AM
Favourite moment:
Rorschach versus tiny man, especially the shots of the door swinging and opening.

Oh yes. That bit I actually thought worked better than in the comic. I mean, due to the red lighting in the comic version, I never realised 'til I saw the film that it was blood coming out under the door rather than water... :smallsigh:
And the door swinging back and forth - excellent.

Kris on a Stick
2009-03-10, 07:56 AM
Rorschach + Big Figue + Men's Room = Awesome Scene.

That bit was one of the few bits that was truly surprising to me, as when I read the comic I hadn't noticed Big Figure run into the room, and thought Rorschach actually did need to, y'know, go.

So yeah, I'm watching the scene, door swinging, Rorschach advancing. Then the toilet flushes. At first I thought that Rorschach had simply given the little guy a swirly/drown him, but then you see the blood coming out from under the door...

My personal interpretation is that Rorschach broke his bones/broke him, then tried to literally flush him down the toilet. Of course, he's too big, and the toilet overflows, letting the blood-tinged water seep forth. Of course, this makes absolutely no sense, and Rorschach probably crunched him into a ball or something, but whatever. It's vaguely humorous, and fits with his earlier comment about disposing of sewage with a toilet.

I loved the riot scene. Best bit was when Comedian fired the (smoke?) grenade right at the dude who was spraypainting 'Who Watches the Watchmen', and hits him in the back.

Rotipher
2009-03-10, 10:37 AM
I mean, due to the red lighting in the comic version, I never realised 'til I saw the film that it was blood coming out under the door rather than water... :smallsigh:


I'm pretty sure it was water in the comic. The end-of-scene remarks about "diving head-first into things" were a hint that Rorschach had stuffed Big Figure's head in the toilet and drowned him. (Hey, he'd already disposed of one piece of sewage that way... :smallwink:)

Rotipher
2009-03-10, 10:53 AM
That said, even I thought that the revelation that The Comedian was Laurie's father was a bit too heavy-handed in the film. The first flashback scene between her mum and her not-dad pretty much spells it out about 20 minutes into the film.

That's because they left out Laurie's remark that she suspected her father was Hooded Justice. As the film never delved into the old Minutemen's private secrets, the faux-romance which Sally's agent had her and H.J. feign for the cameras didn't rate a mention.



Doccy M is not only so vastly powerful as to be unbeatable (and I don't think it makes much sense to be 'united in the face of being doomed with bugger all that you can do about it'), but he's also a known quantity, which the aliens weren't. The Soviets and the Americans will only stop blowing each other to bits so long as they remember that Manhattan is around, which won't be very long given he's left the galaxy.

Presumably, Veidt is counting on there being enough paranoid "Dr. Manhattan sightings" in future years to keep people afraid. (It's not as if you could ever disprove such reports, could you?) He's a keen observer of human mass psychology, and won't have overlooked phenomena like UFO or Bigfoot or Elvis sightings. Plus, if he has to, I'm sure he can arrange some....

Also, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. won't necessarily have to think they can beat the big blue guy if they become allies, only that he's going to stomp them if they dare to contemplate nuking one another again. In that respect, it's a better plan than the alien invasion: remember, Veidt's creature never did prove it had active, hostile intent, and was suspected of having destroyed New York by reflex in its death throes. Better a menace which they know is aware of the Earth, and its vulnerabilities, than one that might not even be able to cross the extraspatial barriers without help from this side.

Eldan
2009-03-10, 02:37 PM
So, saw it today.

Since, for obvious geographical reasons, we couldn't go and watch it in New York, we did the next best thing and went watching it in Rohrschach, which, conveniently is only about half an hour from here.

Which brings me to the only thing that really annoyed me about that movie: I never new that guy was called Ro-shegg.

Deckmaster
2009-03-10, 04:18 PM
Saw it last night. Let me point out a few key changes and how I feel about them.


1. The whole fight scene leading up to the Comedian's death is shown. I didn't like this because I thought it made it too easy for everyone who hadn't read the comic to figure out that Adrian Veidt was behind everything.
2. Everyone knows that Dr. Manhattan can see the past and future; his ability to see into the future has become clouded by tachyons. He theorizes this is because of nuclear war. I understand why they made this change; it's hard to portray a character who can see into the future but can't do anything about. It also raises the immediacy of the nuclear war subplot. I don't like this change because it assumes the audience are a bunch of idiots.
3. The big one; the ending. I'm actually not going to spoil it but I will tell you that the lack of squid does not ruin the impact, or the believability of the world's reaction to it.

Most of what I liked was stuff that was unchanged from the comic. It actually made me understand the Comedian better, even though the flashbacks were relatively the same. Instead of thinking of him as just an *******, I now think of him as an ******* with depth. The actor playing Rorschach got him dead on. I liked Dan better in this version, and the whole "superhero fetish" that him and Laurie have in the comic is not scaled back in the least. It also made me understand Adrian better, too; it made me wonder if the only reason he became a superhero was so he could make a character he could merchandise to fund his plan to save the world by nearly destroying it. Wheels within wheels with that guy.

Yulian
2009-03-10, 04:54 PM
#2 isn't a change. The tachyon thing is in the book, stated as a massive detonation could have caused it by Jon himself.

- Yulian

The Linker
2009-03-10, 05:05 PM
He may have theorized that it was cuased by a nuclear detonation, but the big change, I thought, was that he didn't mention it NEARLY as soon in the comic. From the very beginning in the movie, he raises the issue "I can't see the future! Nuclear war?" whereas in the comic... I think he mentioned it first with Laurie on Mars? Could be wrong.

Cristo Meyers
2009-03-10, 05:18 PM
He says it when Rorschach breaks into the compound to see them, I'm pretty sure.

Finn Solomon
2009-03-10, 05:34 PM
I think the "Incredibles sight gag" the uninformed moviegoers were referring to was the shot of Dollar Bill's cape stuck in the bank door and the man getting shot dead. Which of course, is as ludicrous as rabid Harry Potter fans claiming Terry Pratchett stole the idea of a wizard university from JK Rowling. Moore had the idea first.

Nevrmore
2009-03-10, 05:42 PM
He may have theorized that it was cuased by a nuclear detonation, but the big change, I thought, was that he didn't mention it NEARLY as soon in the comic. From the very beginning in the movie, he raises the issue "I can't see the future! Nuclear war?" whereas in the comic... I think he mentioned it first with Laurie on Mars? Could be wrong.
Correct. When he is telling Laurie about his perception of time and how he is "a puppet who can see the strings." She asks what's ahead in the future and he says that he can't be because it's clouded by tachyons, which could perceivably becaused by massive detonation of a nuclear payload. This makes the tension of the chapter heighten significantly and works better where it was originally.

This, along with several other line transpositions, are weird to me. For instance, in the comic, when Rorschach informs Dr. M that The Comedian is dead, he says that a dead body and a live one are structurally identical and, thus, have no meaning to him. In the movie, they transplant this line to when he's at the interview on the Benny Anger show and the reporter for the Nova Express informs him of Wally Weaver and Moloch's cancer. Why? This just made the fact that he gets upset when he learns of Janey's cancer make him look like a douchebag who only cares about things that he can stick his penis into.

The Linker
2009-03-10, 05:43 PM
He says it when Rorschach breaks into the compound to see them, I'm pretty sure.

He does in the movie, for sure -- but reviewing the book here, he doesn't seem to mention it. First he confirms he knows about the Comedian's death, then he gives the "Live body and dead body = same number of particles" line (and I thought it was neat how the movie placed the line in the interview, where the nation gets to see it -- adds weight to the framing of Dr. Manhattan). After transporting Rorschach away, he spouts little two-word sentences ("He's gone," "Are you still upset?", "Yes Laurie?"), and finally ends with why he won't join Laurie for dinner.

...

Am I getting annoying with my having the book by the computer? :smalleek: I have to return it in a week, anyway. Stupid library.

Edit: As a final note, when he talks with Laurie on Mars, he phrases it as...


I'm not sure. There's some sort of static obscuring the future, preventing any clear impression. / The elecrtomagnetic pulse of a mass warhead detonation might conceivably cause that...

This gives the impression that he hasn't talked about it before, since he's just theorizing about it.

I promise I'll stop!

Edit edit: Ahh, double ninjaed! And Nevrmore covers, like, three-quarters of my post. :smalltongue:

About him getting upset only when Janey is mentioned, I heard Ozymandias say something strange -- he mentioned that he used an influx of tachyons (replace either word with other technical words as needed) at that moment to instill emotion in Dr. Manhattan, perhaps to help the 'temper tantrum' and the run to Mars along. It was odd. :smallconfused:

I could be wrong. Hold on, let me confi--

...

Must print out movie script. NEED PHYSICAL CONFIRMATION.

Executor
2009-03-10, 08:32 PM
More than that. It has ruined one of my favorite songs because now the connotations are all messed around.

Excuse me? If Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah isn't a sex song, then NOTHING is. Seriously, look at these lyrics (with a few sections removed):

She tied you
To a kitchen chair
...
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah

And remember when I moved in you
...
And every breath we drew was Hallelujah

See what I mean?

Fjolnir
2009-03-10, 08:55 PM
I've heard that this doesn't contain any scenes specifically designed for IMAX screens, even though it's being distributed at IMAX theaters. Is this true? If someone saw it at an IMAX theater, could you tell me whether it looked like the top and bottom of the picture were cut off or the left and right sides of the picture seemed cut off? Thanks. I'm just wondering whether it wouldn't be better to see it in a regular theater.

I saw it in Imax, it didn't look like it was cut off anywhere from my perspective though I will admit I was in slightly sub prime seats (4th row right of center) but yeah it didn't seem too bad as far as that was concerned. if it were later in the year I would go and see it on a conventional screen theater, unfortunately the Rustic drive in in Northern RI (holding currently the 3rd largest screen in NE behind Boston and providence's IMAX's respectively) isn't open yet.
that being said, as a person who hasn't read watchmen in a while, I was pleasantly surprised at how close it was to the source, some deviations were expected but all in all a very good movie, with an excellent sound track

Jack_Banzai
2009-03-11, 12:30 AM
I am also unsure why they went to head-choppy as opposed to the fire-game. Not sure what point they were getting at there in terms of the difference.

I read somewhere that Snyder changed the fire to the "head-choppy" because of the proximity of the scene to that of the tenement fire, and that each fire would diminish the impact of the other. I can see his point. Sorry if someone else mentioned it already in the topic, but there are a LOT of posts to comb through in here.

kpenguin
2009-03-11, 01:00 AM
I read somewhere that Snyder changed the fire to the "head-choppy" because of the proximity of the scene to that of the tenement fire, and that each fire would diminish the impact of the other. I can see his point. Sorry if someone else mentioned it already in the topic, but there are a LOT of posts to comb through in here.

First page, boyo


On the screen the reason for this is clear in terms of planning the spectacle. We had already had a fire. This allowed us to see a different thing happening whilst keeping the core of the event the same and indeed enhancing it to take into account the visual rather than textual media. It also preserves the "vibrations up my arm, warm blood on my face" quote.

skywalker
2009-03-11, 01:25 AM
Not that I don't agree with what you're saying or anything, but as I recall (and I've already been wrong once in this thread, so don't take it to heart) is that Rorschach says something to the effect of, after he kills the German shepherds, "It was Kovacs who, muffled under mask, said 'Mother' and it was Kovacs who closed his eyes. It was Rorschach who opened them again."


I wonder if they took out the kerosene murder because... well, it's kind of a miracle he didn't get caught. Think about it. He very noticeably lights the house on fire, surely alerting the police and fire officials. But he stands there in the middle of the street, for an hour. I can just imagine the police showing up and wondering why one of the most elusive criminals in New York was standing there staring dreamingly into some flames. :smalltongue:

I concede I was wrong here.

However, technically, Rorschach was not one of the most elusive criminals at the time, this being his first kill. I think it's probable that this occurred before the Keene Act, because when the Act is passed, Rorschach leaves dead rapists with "never" pinned to the chest, right?


I loved the riot scene. Best bit was when Comedian fired the (smoke?) grenade right at the dude who was spraypainting 'Who Watches the Watchmen', and hits him in the back.

In the comic, it is specifically a tear gas grenade. I think that's what we're supposed to infer in the movie (but how many of us know the difference between smoke, tear gas, and regular grenades?). I was a little annoyed that they didn't have the Comedian specify rubber bullets.


Excuse me? If Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah isn't a sex song, then NOTHING is. Seriously, look at these lyrics (with a few sections removed):

She tied you
To a kitchen chair
...
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah

And remember when I moved in you
...
And every breath we drew was Hallelujah

See what I mean?

Yes, but some people who have never heard Cohen's version and don't listen to the lyrics (which is easy to do, the song is so overused for death on TV) can easily see it as something different. Now, as soon as you listen to the words, you'd be a fool not to realize what it's about. But people who say it's a sex song and people who think it's a sad song are both right. It's just a sad song about sex. :smallfrown: Beautiful, tho.

kpenguin
2009-03-11, 01:48 AM
However, technically, Rorschach was not one of the most elusive criminals at the time, this being his first kill. I think it's probable that this occurred before the Keene Act, because when the Act is passed, Rorschach leaves dead rapists with "never" pinned to the chest, right?

The burning most definitely happens before the

In the comic, in the scene where Comedian and Dan are handling the rioters, Comedian mentions that Rorschach has been nuts ever since the case with the girl.

Matar
2009-03-11, 04:38 AM
Lurking powers... Deactivate!

I really loved the movie, however something bugged me that I didn't see mentioned in this thread so far. Then again, I might have missed it. If so, I blame everyone else.

Er, anyways. Was anyone bothered/disapointed by the fact that they changed lines around when Nightowl busted Rorschach from prison and was about to head off from the Owl-lair?

I dunno, in the comic Niteowl yelled about how hard it was to be Rorschach friend and then they had there little moment. This time it was Rorschach who said how it was hard to be his friend... I dunno, it just seemed off to me. Thought it was alot better in the comic.

It also seemed, well, like a pointless change. There might have been a reason for it but I sure as hell didn't notice one.

Muz
2009-03-11, 12:25 PM
I dunno, in the comic Niteowl yelled about how hard it was to be Rorschach friend and then they had there little moment. This time it was Rorschach who said how it was hard to be his friend... I dunno, it just seemed off to me. Thought it was alot better in the comic.

It also seemed, well, like a pointless change. There might have been a reason for it but I sure as hell didn't notice one.

Are you sure you're remembering this correctly? I saw the movie without having read the comic (and then borrowed it from someone--just got to this part in the comic last night), and I'm pretty sure Nite Owl did his line about how Rorschach just takes and criticizes (I don't remember it word for word at the moment), etc. just the same way in both versions, along with the rest of the exchange. ...Wow, that's a poorly constructed sentence; sorry 'bout that. :smallsmile:

revolver kobold
2009-03-11, 06:55 PM
Are you sure you're remembering this correctly? I saw the movie without having read the comic (and then borrowed it from someone--just got to this part in the comic last night), and I'm pretty sure Nite Owl did his line about how Rorschach just takes and criticizes (I don't remember it word for word at the moment), etc. just the same way in both versions, along with the rest of the exchange. ...Wow, that's a poorly constructed sentence; sorry 'bout that. :smallsmile:

Yeah, you've got it right Muz. Dan flies off the handle and calls Rorschach a lunatic, realizes he has probably been a bit too harsh, quickly apologizes, then Rorschach admits he probably isn't an easy person to get along with (insert awkward handshake here).

Did anyone else notice Captain Metropolis missing from the Crimebusters meeting? Ive seen people on all different forums ranting and raving about all sorts of changes (one guy was complaining that Rorschach didn't eat any sugar cubes. OH NO THE MOVIE HAS BEEN RUINED), but I've yet to see anyone mention anything about the changes to the Crimebusters scene (Or 'Watchmen' scene, as it was called in the movie).

EvilDMMk3
2009-03-11, 07:14 PM
I was exposed to a 5 minute rant as to how Nite Owl's goggles where the wrong shape and thus sucked. Of course, goggles of the shape would not on a human face fit.